Orders of the Day

Home Energy Conservation Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Fuel poverty

'After section 5 of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (c.10) there is inserted—
	"5A Fuel poverty
	An energy conservation authority in England and Wales shall, so far as reasonably practicable, perform its functions under section 2A in a way which, in the opinion of the authority, will contribute to achieving the objectives for the time being specified under, or mentioned in, section 2(2) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 by the dates so specified".'.—[Dr. Desmond Turner.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Desmond Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Desmond Turner: It is a pleasure to speak to the new clause, which reflects a certain amount of difficulty that we encountered in Committee. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment for agreeing to the tabling of the new clause; he and I had to resolve the difficulty by what is perhaps best described as a simultaneous withdrawal, in order to avoid a difficult confrontation.
	I am happy to report to the House that the new clause does exactly the same with regard to fuel poverty as the equivalent amendment that I withdrew in Committee, as it seeks to make the work of local authorities in addressing fuel poverty a statutory duty. That is its intended effect. As far as I am concerned—and as I hope all hon. Members agree—that is a satisfactory outcome. The new clause returns to the Bill one of its three fundamental strands. The Bill is a package containing three interdependent and very strongly related elements. The intended effects of part 2 will be in place, assuming that the new clause is acceptable. I warmly commend it to the House.

Michael Meacher: I am very pleased to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has said. We have had extensive discussions on this proposal and others—most notably amendment No. 11. My hon. Friend's remarks were quite correct.
	I am pleased to speak to the new clause, which would require authorities, once targets have been set, to undertake their functions in relation to domestic energy conservation in such a way as would help achieve the national objectives of the Government's fuel poverty strategy. The main cause of fuel poverty in the UK is a combination of poor energy efficiency in homes, and low incomes. Other factors can also contribute, such as the size of properties in comparison with the number of people living in them and the cost of fuel. Estimates show that while the number of fuel poor was estimated to have fallen by 2000, some 4 million households in the UK were still believed to be in fuel poverty.
	Local authorities have a pivotal role to play if the objective of the Government and the devolved Administrations to seek an end to the problem of fuel poverty is to be achieved. Our first target, however, is to end the blight of fuel poverty by 2010 for vulnerable households. In 1999, there were 3 million such households, accounting for about 70 per cent. of all the fuel poor in the UK. Once progress has been made on the priority vulnerable groups, the focus will be widened to include healthy adult householders in fuel poverty.
	The health implications of fuel poverty can be extremely serious. A cold home can significantly increase the likelihood of ill health. Illnesses such as influenza, heart disease and strokes are all exacerbated by the cold. Cold homes can also promote the growth of fungi and house dust mites, and the latter have been linked to conditions such as asthma. Ill health can lead to enforced absences from work, and certain types of illness such as respiratory disease may restrict employment choices for people without work.
	The need to spend a large portion of income on fuel means that fuel-poor households have to make difficult decisions about other household essentials, which can lead to poor diets and/or withdrawal from the community. For people in vulnerable groups, those problems are exacerbated by the fact that they are likely to be at home for more—and possibly all—of the day, so heating is needed for more time than in other households.
	Cold can cause other discomforts for older people—for example, worsening arthritic pains. It can also contribute to a general feeling of illness. Research suggests that domestic accidents, including fatalities, are more common in cold homes in winter. Periods of prolonged immobility can result, making it even more difficult for older people to keep warm. People may need to go into residential care because of their injuries or because they can no longer live in a cold home.
	The cost of fuel poverty can be counted in more than the misery caused to the affected individuals. Increased illness adds to the pressure on health and social care services. That is especially true in the case of the disabled and the long-term sick. Fuel poverty is likely to exacerbate their problems and lengthen their recovery time. Cold homes may also make it more difficult for carers to look after acutely or chronically sick people, more of whom will have to go into hospital needlessly or go into a nursing home permanently.
	The amendment would require local authorities, when implementing their functions in relation to energy conservation, to contribute to the targets and wider objectives set out in the UK fuel poverty strategy. The strategy, published last November, sets out the range of programmes and measures that were put in place to address the main causes of fuel poverty. They include programmes to improve the energy efficiency of fuel poor households; continuing action to maintain the downward pressure on fuel bills; and action to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Those issues are wide ranging, and require a variety of approaches.
	In England, our key mechanism for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector, where most of the fuel poor are, is the home energy efficiency scheme, which is now marketed, as hon. Members know, as the warm front team. The scheme gives grants of up to £2,500, and provides insulation and heating measures depending on the needs of the householder and the property type. Such action can have a direct impact on quality of life.
	We have a target for warm front to assist 800,000 homes by 2004. I am glad to say that it is on target to deliver, with some 350,000 households already assisted and more than 30,000 new central heating systems installed. Difficult issues remain, and hon. Members have written to me about them. I readily acknowledge that there have been delays in the installation and repair of central heating systems, largely due to a shortage of qualified gas heating engineers. To help tackle that, my Department has funded training courses to help provide additional qualified engineers to work under the scheme. Consequently, the number of installations per month trebled last year.
	For social housing, the Government objective is to bring all such properties up to a decent standard by 2010.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the design of some houses in the public sector is so poor that they need demolishing? For example, when I served on what was then the Select Committee on the Environment, I met someone in Glasgow who paid electricity bills of £20 a week, but whose home was colder than it was outside. The number of public sector houses being built is the lowest for seven years. Homeless people are increasing and the number of those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation with no home has soared by 150 per cent. since the last election. How will the Government square that circle?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to raise the public sector, and the points that he made are correct. However, most of the fuel poor are in the private sector. I was addressing my remarks to that because the fuel poverty strategy deals mainly with that sector. However, there are many dwellings in the public and private sectors that simply do not have a life expectancy as decent homes. They can only be demolished. That forms part of local authorities' programmes. It is for them to decide what cannot be made into a decent home and should therefore be demolished and replaced. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that build must increase; that is the Government's intention. The Government have set a target to provide decent homes to all social sector tenants by 2010, and to reduce the number of social tenants living in homes that are not decent by one third by April 2004, with most of the reduction in deprived areas.
	The energy efficiency commitment is another major programme, which will help fulfil the Government's fuel poverty targets. It came into force on 1 April, only a month ago. It provides an opportunity to take an important step forward in promoting domestic energy efficiency in Great Britain. It places an obligation on electricity and gas suppliers to make improvements in energy efficiency. That is not simply a matter of providing more electricity and gas units per household, hopefully at lower prices, but of the efficiency with which the existing units are contained in the house. It will do that by encouraging and assisting domestic consumers to adopt energy efficiency measures.
	The energy efficiency commitment will have three important benefits. First, we estimate that it will cut greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 0.4 million tonnes of carbon a year. Secondly, by helping electricity and gas consumers to save energy, it will reduce their fuel bills, or they may choose to enjoy greater comfort by living in better-heated homes without increased costs. Thirdly, it will give specific help to lower-income consumers, who spend a larger proportion of their income on energy. That will contribute to the eradication of fuel poverty.
	The energy efficiency commitment sets an overall obligation on all electricity and gas suppliers of 62 fuel-standardised TWh of energy savings. That phrase may not convey a great deal to hon. Members, but, as suppliers will confirm, it is a testing target for the overall improvement of energy efficiency. We believe that it is challenging and achievable, and represents a significant increase in activity over the programmes that have been running successfully since 1994. I believe that it will provide a clear stimulus to the sustainable development of domestic energy efficiency.
	As I said, special help will be given to lower-income consumers, who are almost certainly in the worst category of fuel poverty, by a requirement on suppliers to achieve at least 50 per cent. of their energy savings from householders in receipt of income or disability benefit or working families or disabled persons tax credit.
	The energy efficiency commitment is expected to produce total energy benefits worth approximately £275 million. The average annual benefit for consumers taking up measures under the commitment will be around £11. For those in the priority group of lower-income consumers, it should be more than £15.
	Local authorities are important strategic partners. Only last month, five local councils were awarded beacon status for their work in tackling fuel poverty. The beacon scheme aims to identify centres of excellence in local government from which others can learn. That is an important element of our local government modernisation agenda.
	The warm zone initiative is another example of strategic co-ordination on the ground. It channels existing programmes in a local area. To enable that to happen, warm zones have formed partnerships between the energy utilities, health authorities, community and voluntary sectors, the Government and, again, local authorities.
	A pilot programme was launched last year with five zones across the country based in Northumberland, Stockton, Hull, Sandwell and Newham. The aim of warm zones is to deal with fuel poverty in a locality in three years. They are working on the basis of reaching all households in an area, providing assistance through available grant schemes.
	I shall draw my remarks to a close, because this is rather a lengthy opening statement. Energy efficiency is a real win-win strategy, as all hon. Members will acknowledge. It takes people out of fuel poverty, creates jobs, cuts greenhouse gas emissions and reduces the burdens on the NHS and social services. One of the biggest difficulties, of course, is finding those in need. Schemes such as warm front can be helped by local community workers—doctors, nurses, social workers, voluntary groups and local authority officers—identifying and persuading vulnerable householders, particularly pensioners, to come forward.
	There are other, often more difficult, issues that we need to consider: people whose homes are off the mains gas network; homes whose construction makes them difficult to heat; tackling fuel poverty among the healthy adult fuel poor in the private sector; and under- occupation. These are all challenging issues, and I would be the first to recognise that they still constitute a difficult problem for us. I believe, however, that the new clause will help to focus action at a local level, and, at the same time, ensure that a range of schemes and programmes remains to tackle the needs of the various groups in fuel poverty. I commend the new clause to the House.

Jonathan Sayeed: The Government have repeatedly pledged to eradicate cold-related diseases by 2010, yet current statistics show that up to 50,000 elderly people may be dying of cold in Britain every winter. Commenting on the apparently laudable intentions of the Government's 10-year fuel poverty plan, the Minister described himself as
	"declaring war on fuel poverty".
	When the fuel poverty strategy was announced, the Minister admitted—as he did again today—that the targets were challenging, but said that the strategy was
	"an important element of our programme to tackle poverty and social exclusion."
	I acknowledge that the Minister has addressed some of our concerns about fuel poverty in new clause 1, but he could have done so much more. If he had used the eight months since the Bill was published to devise and propose fundamental improvements, he would have earned the gratitude not only of all in this place but, even more important, of those in greatest need. If he had used that time to tackle energy inefficiency and reduce energy consumption, we all would have applauded. If he had used the time to reverse the farce whereby, under the Government's own plans for housing, the certified standard assessment procedure rating scheme for social housing is considerably lower than that set as part of building regulations for private housing, we would all have helped him.
	That means—shorn of its jargon, so that all hon. Members can understand it—that local authority homes for poor people are being built to be less energy efficient than those of the better off. In consequence, those who are in local authority and housing association accommodation—often the poorest people in society—are likely to be those who will remain in fuel poverty the longest. When the Minister talked about
	"declaring war on fuel poverty",
	what he should have been doing was ensuring that local authority and social housing was at least of the same energy efficiency standard as private sector housing. If we add to that the absurdity that, under current plans for energy efficiency and fuel poverty, the poor pay more and the rich pay less to achieve the same degree of warmth, we have a very clear indication of how the Minister could usefully have spent the last eight months of his time.
	This is a Government who continue to congratulate themselves on their commitment to lifting people—most prominently, children—out of poverty. I wish they would. But the figures show that if they think that they are achieving that, it is just another example of Labour's social delusion. [Interruption.] Just wait for it! At the last general election, the Chancellor asserted that Labour had lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty. Recently released Government figures show that the true figure was not 1.2 million but 500,000, which simply takes the poverty rate back to roughly where it was in 1994–95.
	Another deception on the part of the Government has involved the definition of fuel poverty. The long-standing definition of someone in fuel poverty is someone who would need to spend more than 10 per cent. of their disposable income on the fuel required to heat their home to a reasonable level of warmth, disposable income being the money that people have left over after paying for housing costs. By sleight of hand, the Government changed the definition from 10 per cent. of disposable income to 10 per cent. of total income.
	In other words, if a pensioner received £130 a week, paid £30 rent and had fuel bills of £12.50 a week, under the old definition they were fuel poor, because they were paying 12.5 per cent. of their £100 disposable income on fuel. However, once the UK fuel poverty strategy was introduced by this Labour Government—the same strategy that the Minister has been lauding today—that pensioner was suddenly no longer fuel poor, because their fuel bills were less than 10 per cent. of their £130 income. Of course they were not actually any warmer; they had just been defined out of fuel poverty. That is no doubt the reason why the Government now tell us that the number of households classified as being in fuel poverty has been reduced by about 1.5 million across the United Kingdom. That just shows how changing the definition has helped the Government to massage their figures.
	We can give a muted cheer to new clause 1, so far as it goes, but, by George, the Minister could have used the eight months since this Bill was published much more profitably.

Huw Edwards: I am delighted to be able to contribute to the debate on new clause 1. The hon. Member for Mid–Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has just said that he gives it a "muted cheer". In Committee, he gave more enthusiastic support to the strategy to combat fuel poverty, and I am slightly disappointed to hear his slight change of tone, now that we are discussing it on the Floor of the House. As a member of the Committee, I give my great support to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). He has worked immensely hard on this Bill, and I am delighted that the compromises and discussions that have taken place between him and the Government have now resulted in new clause 1, which we can all support.
	My interest in fuel poverty goes back some 20 years, to when I first studied a book written by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), now the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He wrote several books, but his seminal work on this subject was called "Old and Cold: A Study of Hypothermia", which dealt with the problems of fuel poverty, especially among the elderly in this country. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to the debate about the definition of fuel poverty. I understand that that definition is up for consultation, and I hope that an agreement will soon be reached.
	I was the only member of the Committee from a Welsh constituency, and I would like to address my comments to the position in Wales. There is no direct estimate of the number of fuel-poor households in Wales, but there are some indications. The 1997–98 Welsh house condition survey estimated that 220,000 households were deemed eligible for help under the energy efficiency scheme in Wales, in that they lacked basic insulation and/or heating, and could potentially suffer from the problems of fuel poverty. One hundred and fifteen thousand people live in social housing, 84,000 in owner-occupied housing, and 23,000 in the private rented sector.
	According to Age Concern Wales, 20 per cent. of the Welsh population are classified as pensioners, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out, the problem of fuel poverty is most serious among the elderly. A Shelter Cymru report estimates that a quarter of a million households in Wales are
	"unable to adequately heat their homes and are at risk from serious health problems or death from the effects of cold housing."
	Fuel poverty in Wales does not just affect densely populated areas; it is also a significant problem in rural areas. That was discussed at the rural fuel poverty conference in May 2001, when it was noted that
	"Wales suffers from an underdeveloped infrastructure, particularly in accessing affordable fuels such as mains gas."
	My constituency, which is very rural, contains a socially isolated community in Llanelly Hill, near Blaenavon. The area has no mains gas, and, being in a particularly cold part of Monmouthshire, it would benefit from a commitment by local authorities to provide the gas that it needs.
	Help the Aged has contacted me about fuel poverty among the elderly, and the link with winter deaths. It estimates that, nationally, between 20,000 and 50,000 people die as a result of inadequate heating.
	I commend the new clause, which is part of the Government's commitment to eradicating social exclusion. I also commend the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown.

Sue Doughty: I pay tribute to all who have worked so hard over the past few months to bring the Bill to this stage. It has taken a tremendous amount of hard work and negotiation. Sadly, we are not out of the woods yet. On day one, we were presented with what appeared to be a practical solution to the problems of local authorities—what they were expected to do and how they would meet their targets while conforming to the Government's strategy for the eradication of fuel poverty and delivering on other environmental targets—but we are not much further down the line. Clauses go into the Bill and out again, and we still have the same worries about the Government's commitment not just to ending fuel poverty, but to meeting the environmental targets that the Bill supports so strongly.
	The Bill goes some way towards dealing with fuel poverty. I am sure that we are all committed to dealing with that problem. It cannot be right for one of the most prosperous countries to suffer the scourge of fuel poverty nowadays. Its rapid elimination is essential as a matter of social justice. We must, however, give local government the tools with which to do the job. It is ridiculous that, while local government chases one Government target after another, measures that would make a real difference are inserted in the Bill and then taken out again. Now we are having to debate them yet again.
	A fortnight ago, I visited a council house in my constituency. I was shown crumbling windows where people had put newspapers in the cracks to keep the warmth inside. Students line roof vents with newspaper, which causes a huge fire hazard. These people are among the poorest.
	I asked the council's chief executive why the council was planning to have the windows painted. As they were falling apart, it would simply be throwing good money after bad. What, I asked, had happened to the window replacement scheme, which would have been of real benefit? The chief executive said, "We were going to do that, but we had to think again because the Government gave us a different set of targets." Eminently sensible schemes have been junked. The council will paint the crumbling windows, and people will go on lining them with newspaper. The newspaper may be painted at the same time for all I know.

Chris Bryant: So far, the hon. Lady has talked exclusively about local government housing. My constituency is in a former mining area and is very poor. It falls between two stools in that it is not quite rural and not quite metropolitan. Eighty-six per cent. of my constituents are home owners, and they suffer from exactly the same problems of fuel poverty. Is not the best way of helping people to rescue themselves from fuel poverty ensuring that they have more money in their pockets?

Sue Doughty: That is certainly fundamental to ending the problem, but housing standards must be improved so that the money that people have in their pockets can be used wisely.
	If we are to deal with fuel poverty, we must give local government the tools that it needs. The inhabitants of houses in multiple occupation are often among the poorest people in society. They are the least able to deal with the properties that they occupy, especially when those properties are rented, because they cannot afford to do so. Someone must work on their behalf, and part 3 of the Bill is essential in that regard.
	The Bill's structure is strong. Its purpose is the elimination of fuel poverty, the measurement of targets along the way, and the identification of households that should qualify for the energy conservation scheme. I pay tribute to the Government for the warm homes scheme, and the work of the Energy Saving Trust. I have attended meetings held by the trust in Surrey, which have brought together HECA officers—HECA stands for Home Energy Conservation Act—community health workers and a range of other people to share ideas, suggest innovations and consider the different ways of ending fuel poverty. The experience has been exciting and rewarding, but all those people still say the same thing: if they are to be empowered, they must be empowered by Government.
	We are suffering some desperate disappointments. We are trying to support the sensible measures in the Bill, but the rug keeps sliding from under our feet. How do we know when we will meet our targets? We must pinpoint the failures and introduce measures to ensure that we meet the targets. Otherwise, in 2010 or 2020 we shall be saying, "We will not quite meet this or that environmental target", and claiming that the figures, or other factors, have changed.
	We must take positive action. We cannot just tell people, "Do this; we do not mind how you do it". If we are to hold up our heads when we visit places such as Johannesburg, ostensibly leading the way on environmental issues, we must deliver on our own doorstep, and we cannot do that unless we enact the Bill in its original form.

Michael Meacher: Let me say something about amendments Nos. 5 and 6. Amendment No. 5 removes the existing fuel poverty clause from the Bill. I have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on a new fuel poverty clause that better meets our joint aims of ending fuel poverty. Amendment No. 6 would establish a commencement date for the fuel poverty clause—12 months after the passing of the Act—bringing it into line with the deadline for the energy-efficiency provisions.
	I never cease to be stunned by the brass neck of the Tory party, and especially by that of the hon. Member for Mid–Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed). As I said in Committee, poverty, and fuel poverty, trebled during the 18 years of Conservative government. In 1997 we inherited a situation in which, depending on the definition used, there were between 4 million and 5 million fuel poor. I will take no lessons from him or the Tory party about dealing with fuel poverty because the Tories massively exacerbated it. We are addressing it, reducing it and seeking to eliminate it by 2010.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we could have used our time better. I do not think that we could have used it better than by the implementation of the home energy efficiency scheme, the warm front scheme and the energy efficiency commitment. Those three massive programmes require a huge amount of Government funding together with a significant upgrading of local authority stock to decent standards. We all want the Bill to succeed, and if it does, its success will overwhelmingly be due to existing components of the Government's programme.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that we could have done better in promoting energy efficiency. He is probably unaware that the energy efficiency best practice programme operated by my Department reckons that it saves several hundred million pounds a year primarily at the industrial level, but also at the domestic level. We constantly promote energy efficiency to the fullest possible extent.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman suggested that we had somehow massaged the figures by changing the definitions. He completely misses the point that I have made repeatedly: whichever definition we use, whether it is based on gross or net income, we will achieve our target in respect of the main categories of fuel poverty—elderly people who are fuel poor, the long-term sick and disabled and low-income families with children—by taking them out of fuel poverty by 2010.
	The hon. Gentleman's remarks are not only grudging and curmudgeonly, but unreasonable. I am glad to support this important Bill. It builds on the foundation of Government policy which is overwhelmingly driving in that direction, contrary to the record of the previous Government.

Desmond Turner: This morning is about private Members' legislation, where traditionally the party divides are a little less obvious, so I shall not get involved in the spat across the Front Benches. It is all too easy to get bogged down in statistics and lose sight of the basic truths. However, there are two simple truths: first, whatever statistical definition is used, we all agree that there are still too many people in fuel poverty; secondly, the Government are working hard to address fuel poverty and investing heavily to that end. The new clause helps to focus that investment at a local level to make sure that it delivers most effectively. In that respect local authorities can do a more effective job than a national organisation. They know their areas, they know where the people with the greatest problems are and they can point strategy in the right direction. We all want to end fuel poverty, and the new clause expresses the original intentions of the Bill by requiring local authorities to play their role in doing so.
	I point out to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) that we are building on the provisions of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, because the fuel poverty strategy was a requirement of that Act. The Government have delivered the fuel poverty strategy, but it needs to be implemented physically. Unfortunately, that Act, which was an excellent private Member's Bill, did not have any statutory teeth in respect of local authorities and placed no statutory burden on them. This Bill does and new clause 1 sets it firmly in the centre of the Bill. It may not be all that everybody wants and I do not pretend that it is, but it represents a considerable and significant advance. On the basis of moving towards the achievement of an aim for which we are all striving, I commend the new clause to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Review of schemes not conforming to model scheme

'After section 349 of the Housing Act 1985 there is inserted—
	"349A Review of schemes not conforming to model scheme
	(1) This section applies to a registration scheme ("the scheme") made by a local housing authority which—
	(a) at the time it came into force did not conform to the model registration scheme, and
	(b) has not been subsequently varied so as to conform to the model scheme.
	(2) Every five years after the coming into force of the scheme the authority shall decide whether or not to vary the scheme so that it conforms to the model scheme.
	(3) At least six months before the time at which a decision under subsection (2) is required the authority shall publish a notice which—
	(a) states whether or not they intend to vary the scheme so that it conforms to the model scheme, and
	(b) invites persons to make written representations in relation to that intention within the period of three months beginning with the day the notice is published.
	(4) In making the decision under subsection (2) the authority shall take into account any written representations which are made to them within that period.
	(5) If the authority decide not to vary the scheme so that it conforms to the model scheme, they shall publish a notice of that decision.
	(6) In this section "publish" means publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the district of the local housing authority concerned.".'.—[Dr. Desmond Turner.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Desmond Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 10.

Desmond Turner: Again, I am happy to endorse the new clause. It amends the provisions on houses in multiple occupation and seeks to address some of the concerns expressed by landlords. If anyone thinks that we are out to clobber landlords for the sake of it, it shows that we are not. Indeed we have been listening to their concerns, putting them to the Government and, I am pleased to say, getting a positive response, which is illustrated in the new clause.
	The National Federation of Residential Landlords considers that licensing is a mistake from a policy point of view. We would expect that because nobody wants to be licensed if they can avoid it. However, they also find that the basis now proposed is
	"reasonably palatable, provided the scheme is reasonably implemented."
	That is a reasonable point and it is precisely where new clause 2 comes in.
	The Bill provides for the Secretary of state to prepare model registration schemes. There is, however, the possibility that local housing authorities may depart from model schemes. In certain areas, existing schemes may not conform to the Secretary of State's model and landlords may well consider some of the provisions and demands of the scheme unreasonably onerous. I will not try to pretend that genuine problems will not arise.
	New clause 2 would ensure that schemes that do not conform to the Secretary of State's model are reviewed after five years of operation, that there is public consultation and that the results of that public consultation are taken into account in deciding whether the scheme should continue in its existing form or be modified.
	The new clause is intended to address landlords' very reasonable fears and provide a mechanism for doing so. That is the simple rationale behind it and I commend it to the House.

Michael Meacher: I am glad to endorse what my hon. Friend has rightly said, and to join him in supporting new clause 2. Local authorities that use their discretionary powers to extend the licensing of HMOs to properties not covered by mandatory national registration will need to report, and consult, on their local schemes after five years. We do not propose that the Secretary of State should have to approve every local authority scheme after five years, because that would create a sizeable bureaucratic logjam. However, it is right that, in the context of local housing policies, local variations should be subject to local consultation after a reasonable period. I am happy to go into more detail if hon. Members wish, but that is the basis of the provision.
	In taking this opportunity to discuss Government amendment No. 10, I should point out that, according to the terms of amendment No. 9, regulations under clause 3 will involve the potentially time-consuming process of seeking the affirmative resolution of both Houses. The Bill prescribes a deadline of two months for its coming into force, and Government amendment No. 10 will extend that period by four months, to six months. The Bill prescribes a deadline of 12 months, after its coming into force for local authorities to have in place registration schemes. The amendment will therefore allow up to 18 months for the putting in place of regulations to define the HMOs that local authorities must register. That will follow a period of public consultation and debate in both Houses. On that basis, I commend both amendments to the House.

Jonathan Sayeed: I had intended to confine the majority of my remarks on HMOs to the third group of amendments, but given what the Minister has just said about Government amendment No. 10, I shall mention some of them now.
	We have no particular difficulty with new clause 2. We acknowledge that the Government have recognised, and sought to address, several of the worries that we expressed in Committee and the on Second Reading. However, my understanding was that all regulations subsequent to the Bill's enactment will be reviewed in Parliament by affirmative resolution, and that amendment No. 9, to which the Minister referred, will apply only to HMOs. I ask the Minister to confirm that it will apply to regulations that define a "prescribed relationship", and to regulations "prescribing descriptions of buildings". Why will regulations dealing with registration schemes after the Bill's enactment not be reviewed in Parliament by affirmative resolution? That would at least ensure that we can debate them. For the avoidance of doubt, I will also ask the Minister to confirm various other points that we raised in Committee, but they would be best discussed when we consider the fourth group of amendments.
	I am slightly worried by the Minister's comments. I understand his point about time scales, but the fact is that, although the Bill was published some eight months ago, the Government decided to table amendments to it just 24 hours before today's debate. I fear that the explanation is that ill-thought out legislation, drafted by civil servants, has been pushed past Ministers without their understanding its implications. Unless we in this House can scrutinise new proposals, I fear that we will end up with thoroughly bad regulations—a point on which I shall expand later.
	Although we support new clause 2, which addresses a number of questions that we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, we expect the Minister to explain why all regulations subsequent to the Bill's enactment will not be reviewed by Parliament through affirmative resolution.

Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on introducing this Bill, and I am honoured to be a sponsor of it. I fear that it has been somewhat emasculated, but we are all adults, and we know the practicalities involved in getting legislation on to the statute book. However, having listened to and participated in the debates on new clause 2 in Committee, I say in support of the hon. Gentleman and the Minister that this constitutes a much better way to get the legislation on to the statute book. The original measure was seen by private landlords, at least, as far too inflexible and draconian, but the Bill before us strikes a better balance. I conclude by reiterating my support for new clause 2, and for Government amendment No. 10.

Michael Meacher: The complaint raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) is unreasonable. He seems to want to extend the proposal in amendment No. 9 so that regulations under clause 3 are made by affirmative, rather than negative, resolution, but that would also extend the requirement to other regulations. If we went down that route, the Government would not only need to seek Parliament's affirmative approval for regulations defining properties classified as HMOs but regulations prescribing the form of registration, the model scheme and control provisions would also require debate in both Houses. That would involve significant parliamentary time.
	Regulations prescribing the form of registration will seek to define the number of storeys of buildings covered by the definition—a significant aspect of that definition. However, the key point is that, in general, matters that are not envisaged as being subject to affirmative resolution are those that are not currently subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that we have struck the right balance between an appropriate use of parliamentary time and ensuring that measures that are subject to parliamentary scrutiny are indeed so scrutinised. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are certainly not trying to pass legislation through this House without proper scrutiny.

Desmond Turner: Happily, I have not heard any serious opposition to new clause 2, so I hope that it is acceptable to the House. The debate has ranged on to amendment No. 9 and other amendments that some hon. Members, including myself, would have liked to see and, indeed, expected.

Jonathan Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman mentioned amendments that he had expected. Did he mean that he had expected that more regulations to be made subsequent to the passing of the Act would be considered by Parliament under the positive resolution procedure?

Desmond Turner: That was what I meant. I was as surprised as the hon. Gentleman to find only one amendment to clause 3 to that effect on the amendment paper when it was published yesterday, when it was of course too late to correct that by tabling further amendments. However, depending on Mr. Speaker's ruling, we may be able to return to that point later this morning. I hope that the House will endorse new clause 2.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Targets for Energy Efficiency Improvements

Desmond Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 2 and insert—
	'(1) After section 2 of the principal Act there is inserted—
	"2A Energy efficiency reports
	(1) Where a target applies for the time being to an energy conservation authority in England and Wales, the authority shall prepare a report in accordance with this section.
	(2) The report shall set out the energy conservation measures that the authority considers practicable, cost–effective and likely to result in the target being met.
	(3) An energy conservation authority in England and Wales shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, implement so as to meet the target any report which it has prepared in accordance with this section and published.
	(4) In this section a target means a requirement to achieve an improvement (which may be expressed as a percentage) in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation in the authority's area within a specified time.
	(5) A target applies to an authority at any time when—
	(a) the Secretary of State, after consulting the Local Government Association of England and Wales, has made a determination specifying the target and providing for it to apply to the authority or to authorities including the authority, and
	(b) the target has been published in any manner the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(6) The Secretary of State may by a further determination made after consultation with the association and so published vary any previous determination and any target shall have effect accordingly.
	(7) Subsections (3) to (7) of section 2 apply for the purposes of this section.
	(8) On the application to an authority of a target under this section, this Act so far as it relates to reports under section 2 ceases to apply in relation to the authority".
	(2) In sections 3 (functions of Secretary of State) and 5(1) (modification) of the principal Act, after each mention of "section 2" there is inserted "or 2A", and—
	(a) at the end of section 4(2) there is inserted "for the purposes of reports under section 2",
	(b) after section 4(2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) The Secretary of State may give energy conservation authorities in England and Wales such guidance as he considers appropriate in relation to the exercise of their functions under section 2A and (so far as relating to that section) section 3(2)(a).",
	(c) in section 5(2), for "subsections (2) to (6) of section 2" there is substituted "sections 2 and 2A".
	(3) In section 6 of the principal Act (supplementary), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(3) An energy conservation authority in England and Wales must—
	(a) at all reasonable times keep a copy of any report under section 2 or 2A, and of any report sent to the Secretary of State under section 3(2)(a), available for inspection by members of the public free of charge, and
	(b) provide reasonable facilities for members of the public to obtain copies of such reports on payment of a reasonable charge.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument require registered social landlords to provide each energy conservation authority in England and Wales within whose area they have residential accommodation with prescribed information, in the prescribed form, as to the levels of performance achieved by them in relation to the energy efficiency of the accommodation.
	(5) A registered social landlord who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement imposed by regulations under subsection (4) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	Proceedings for an offence under this subsection may only be brought by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
	(5) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under subsection (4) and "registered social landlord" has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1996; and a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, at beginning insert—
	'(A1) The appropriate Minister shall in exercising any functions under this section or under the principal Act, and in considering whether or not to exercise those functions, have as a principal aim the achievement of an improvement in energy efficiency in residential accommodation of at least 30 per cent. by the end of 2010, taking 1st January 1996 as the base line date.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 12 and 8.

Desmond Turner: I think that all hon. Members agree that targets are an essential part of delivering the energy efficiency and the fuel poverty components of the Bill. To some extent, I share the disappointment of other hon. Members that the Bill contains no specific targets, in terms of percentages. However, more importantly, Government amendment No. 11 contains a mechanism to make energy conservation a statutory burden on local authorities. At present, it is an optional activity that some authorities pursue with more vigour than others.

Don Foster: I also join hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on promoting this important Bill. He mentioned concerns about non-statutory requirements, but does he share my concern that the amendment will mean that it will no longer be a statutory requirement on the Government to set targets in that area, even at a level that meets the performance and innovation unit recommendations?

Desmond Turner: I do not in practice share the hon. Gentleman's concern, because whether we are talking about the HECA target or the PIU target, they mean the same in practice. They will deliver the same total quantity of energy conservation if they are achieved. No one disputes the desirability of achieving that target or the consequences of not doing so. Anyone who set out to try to achieve a lesser overall target would, rightly, be scorned. That is not going to happen. It is unthinkable.
	The 20 per cent. PIU target and the 30 per cent. HECA target may not be formal Government policy, but they are the centrepiece of everyone's thinking on energy conservation. They have effectively been endorsed by Ministers from all the Departments concerned, so it is inconceivable that they would not form the working aim. I wanted to put it in the Bill that the Secretary of State should have the PIU target as his aim. I chose the PIU target, but the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment, in the same words as my original amendment, that refers to the HECA target. They come to the same thing.
	I know that it is psychologically important to have one of those targets in the Bill and I would have preferred that to be the case. However, British Governments, whether Tory or Labour—probably even Liberal, back in the dim and distant days when we had such things—will not allow figures to appear in Bills. I find that extraordinary, but it is true. The only examples of Governments being prepared to put figures in a Bill are Finance Bills, which obviously would not mean much without them. In reality, those targets are the principle aim of everybody involved and will inform the targets set by the Secretary of State to achieve that aim.
	Amendment No. 11 makes provision for setting targets as necessary, according to the local authority. Some authorities have done outstandingly well in energy conservation, and that is not necessarily correlated directly to their political complexion. There are good Conservative-controlled authorities, good Labour- controlled authorities and, probably, good Liberal- controlled authorities. There are also bad examples of authorities of all three political colours. It depends on how the local authorities set their political priorities.

Chris Bryant: I accept the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. However, some local authorities, including mine, face a further challenge. If 86 per cent. of the population are home owners living in properties that do not meet any of the necessary criteria, it is difficult for local authorities to make significant headway.

Desmond Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention because it enables me to point out how local authorities in that position can make progress towards the targets. HECA officers, in good authorities, have an excellent record of effectiveness. They lever in funds for the purpose that amount to 10 times more than their employers need to put into the operation, because funds—not only from Government schemes, but from the energy industry—are available.
	Those funds can be directed at owner-occupiers of limited means. They are not excluded from the Government's energy-saving, energy-efficient schemes. That is an important point. Private home owners who are poor can receive substantial grant assistance. Enthusiastic HECA officers have proved themselves good, adept and successful in co-ordinating and directing such funds to where they can do the most good. I submit to my hon. Friend that his constituency has precisely the sort of local authority where these measures can make a difference.
	My main point is that the really significant provision to be included in the Bill is not the national overall target, because that is so clearly understood, but the fact that it sets in place the mechanism for giving the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which we all applaud, a statutory responsibility for implementation of those targets at a local level on local energy authorities. That provision does not exist at present. If it were not for the Bill, the Government would, sooner or later, have to do something similar. Otherwise, my supporters and I are certain that we will not achieve either the HECA or the PIU target. We estimate that we will fall short of them by about a quarter. That represents a hell of a lot of tonnes of CO 2 that should not be omitted and a lot of homes using and wasting a lot more energy than they should. By dint of these provisions, we will be able to plug that gap. I count that as a truly significant gain—pretty reasonable for a private Member's Bill, if the House accepts it.
	The amendment also brings into the scope of legislation the energy conservation activities of registered social landlords, a point that has been made by colleagues, people outside the House and private landlords. Registered social landlords would be brought into the net under the amendment.
	I have said all that I intend to say in support of the amendment. Let me say to the Members who have put their names to amendment (a) that I totally empathise with its intentions. In the greater interest of ensuring that the Bill becomes law, I respectfully ask them not to press their amendment to the vote. However, the point in the amendment is very well made. I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 11 and that it will not have to make a decision about amendment (a).

Michael Meacher: Amendment No. 11 is the heart of the Bill—the key issue—and I am glad to support it. It effectively replaces clause 1, as agreed in Committee, with the exception of clause 1(7). It sets out the Bill's key provisions in relation to improving domestic energy efficiency. It amends the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, making it more effective and giving it more teeth. That is something that we all want, and I am pleased that we can use the Bill to do it.
	Before I consider each of the amendment's proposals in detail, I shall explain why, in the Government's view, it is necessary to amend the Bill in this way. It would be an understatement to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and I have considered this amendment at great length. I sometimes felt as though I had been in continuous session. The amendment is the outcome of many hours of discussion, deliberation and hard work.
	Hon. Members will recall that the Committee agreed an amendment that put targets into the Bill. At the time, I made it clear that I could not support it. It went further than I was able to go without knowing fully what the financial implications of such a duty would be for local authorities.
	Amendment No. 11 would introduce, in effect, a new HECA regime. Authorities would be required to prepare and implement new, more rigorous reports so as to achieve statutory targets. These targets would be set by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England and the National Assembly for Wales, following consultation with local authority representatives. However, because the Government would not place a new burden on authorities without offering the funding to meet it in full, targets would not be set until the necessary funding could be made available. Until such time as targets were set, no new duties would be imposed on authorities.

Colin Challen: On the financial cost of targets, I was very grateful to my right hon. Friend for writing to me in March about the possibility of including targets in the Bill. He referred to the 600,000 home insulation grants that the Government were funding, at a possible cost of £2,000 each. Has any assessment been made of the impact of those grants over the next three years on possible targets under an HECA regime?

Michael Meacher: As I indicated in my remarks on new clause 1, that is, in effect, an essential part of the Government's commitment to the fuel strategy target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2010. Because, under the warm front team, it is a response to demand—in other words, it is for householders, social workers, doctors or others in the locality to make an application for the work to be undertaken—it is impossible to make a precise calculation of the overall effect, particularly over a 10-year period. However, there is no doubt that the majority of what remains to be done in meeting the fuel poverty strategy and improving home energy efficiency will be achieved by the warm front team and the energy efficiency commitment, as well as by upgrading local authority stock. I cannot give the exact figure, but it is certainly a major part of the cost.
	The potential cost of the Bill to authorities is critical. There is an accepted principle in Government that local authorities must be fully funded for any new burdens imposed on them. A new burden on local authorities is defined as any policy or initiative that increases the cost of providing local authority services. So, for example, when new legislation creates extra responsibilities on councils, the Government fund those responsibilities.
	Under this procedure, an overall policy objective can usually be met by securing appropriate funding within the spending review process. Crucially, however, when a new burden is introduced between reviews—as in this case—a transfer of funds needs to be made within existing totals to ensure that local authorities are properly funded.
	For each initiative, an identifiable Department is in the lead. Where an initiative emanates solely from one Department, that will be the lead Department. In this case, my Department is responsible for any new burdens that will be imposed on local authorities as a result of new domestic energy efficiency and fuel poverty duties.
	I wholly understand that some Members may take the view that the reasons for implementing the Bill are so important that local authorities should implement its provisions within existing resources. That argument was played out in Committee. In other words, the matter should be prioritised. However, we must not consider general efficiency savings—however desirable they may be—within local authorities as an available source of funding for new burdens. Nor should we assume that authorities can absorb the cost of a new burden through reduced expenditure on existing functions.
	In the context of the Bill, unless action is taken that clearly reduces local authority costs in other matters concerned with energy efficiency targets, I am responsible for finding the budget to reimburse all their costs. Without that funding, local authorities will have to secure provision from other budget hits. Many of them will simply say that that is not acceptable.

Jonathan Sayeed: It has been suggested that the extra burden on local authorities will be about £29 million. Does the Minister confirm that figure? Does he agree that it is about right? Is he saying that he does not have access to that amount to reimburse local authorities?

Michael Meacher: I do not confirm the figure of £29 million. Several rough and ready estimates have been produced, for example by the Local Government Association and the Association for the Conservation of Energy, for which we are grateful: the possible costs range between £29 million and £1 billion. That is an enormous range, so one can hardly give credence to £29 million. Even if the figure were £29 million, however, everything that I have said continues to apply. I should have to find a way of reducing expenditure for local authorities by that amount, especially in the energy efficiency field. I repeat that no one has suggested how that can be done fairly or properly, or, indeed, that it would be right to do it.

Brian Iddon: I am a little confused. The Government set a target of 30 per cent. by 2010. My right hon. Friend has made the criticism that local authorities have not been meeting that target. Is he saying that the Government have not made available the money to meet that target?

Michael Meacher: I am saying that the Government did not set the target of achieving a 30 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency in domestic housing stock. That target was set by the last Conservative Government as an aim, not a statutory requirement, and they provided no money with which to achieve it. That is the situation that we inherited and we have to confront it. Are we serious about the issue? I do not think that the last Government were serious. We are trying to confront the situation. We believe that there needs to be an improvement in energy efficiency, especially among the laggard local authorities—those who have achieved hardly anything. Some have obtained good results, but many have not. If we are to make those improvements, we have to find the extra money. That is the problem.
	The Government provide money through the spending review. We are currently in the third year of the 2000 spending review, and there will soon be an announcement—presumably in the summer—about the 2002 spending review. Those reviews are carefully prepared and a private Member's Bill, such as this one, would insert a requirement for an unspecified sum, perhaps between £29 million and £1 billion. That is where the problem lies.

Peter Bottomley: The House understands that on money matters, the Minister can say only what the Treasury authorises him to say, so if we argue with him we are really arguing with the Treasury and we are actually on his side. We hope that he will be successful. Can he tell us, in plain language, whether the Government have that aim, or not?

Michael Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the aim of a 30 per cent. improvement in home energy efficiency, I repeat that that aim was set by the previous—[Interruption.] Let me answer in my own way. That aim was set by the previous Government, but they did not provide the money for it. If I am to take over that aim, I have to explain to local authorities where the money is to come from. It is an aspiration. I should love to have an improvement of 30 per cent., but I cannot simply declare it with a wave of the wand, and say that the Government accept the target unless I can say where the money will come from. The proposition in the amendment is that we shall make the best endeavours to achieve that aim, but only when I have the money available for the improvement. That is the only possible way forward.
	I am not resiling in any way from an improvement of something in the order of 30 per cent. but there is no point in pretending that one can pluck a figure from the air unless one can say where the money will come from. It is not a quarrel with the Treasury: the Government are united in the view that if we commit to something, we have to say how it will be achieved and where the money will come from.

Peter Bottomley: rose—

Michael Meacher: I am being extremely generous to the hon. Gentleman, as I hope he realises.

Peter Bottomley: I accept that.
	As I made plain, I am not making a personal attack on the Minister, but are the Government saying that the aim of the previous Conservative Government is not currently their aim?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has heard me say in words of one syllable that that is not the case. I am saying that no responsible Government—and I think that the previous Government were irresponsible on this point—[Interruption.] It is not right for the Government to set a target, and to give guidance to local authorities drawing up their energy efficiency reports by mentioning a figure of 30 per cent., without saying where the money is to come from. That is not responsible. All I am saying is that this Government are not going to do that.
	I want a big improvement in energy efficiency. We are already massively committed to that, through the home energy efficiency scheme, the energy efficiency commitment and the upgrading of local authority housing stock. That will have a massive effect, so any suggestion that we need to be prompted to accept a 30 per cent. target is beside the point. We are going far in that direction, but if I am to give a commitment that by a certain date we shall have achieved exactly that target, I repeat—for the last time—that I have to say where the money will come from, and when we are between spending reviews, I am not in a position to do that.

Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher: I warn hon. Members that my speech is very long, so this must be the last intervention. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Jonathan Sayeed: What the right hon. Gentleman has just said leaves me, as well as some of my hon. Friends and others, perplexed. In paragraph 3 of a letter of 18 September 2001 to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), the Minister said that the Government
	"asked authorities to prepare strategies for making at least substantial progress towards a 30 per cent. improvement in 10 years from 1 April 1996".
	That sounds a bit like a target. In the penultimate paragraph of the same letter, the right hon. Gentleman talks about making the 30 per cent. target more robust. Clearly, for some months, the right hon. Gentleman has been asking local authorities not only to set themselves targets but to fulfil them. So what has changed?

Michael Meacher: That is exactly what the HECA was designed to do. It asked, not required, local authorities to make substantial improvements in energy efficiency. The previous Conservative Government set a 30 per cent. target, but did not provide the funding to implement it. That letter of September 2001 is exactly within the parameters of the HECA. This Bill goes further than that and requires the achievement of particular targets, which I am all in favour of if I can fund it.
	Since taking office, we have provided good grant increases. In the main, councils have used that money to improve services in our priority areas of education and social services, but any unfunded new burdens will result in local authorities looking to other areas of their services. The environmental protection and cultural services block of the revenue support grant, which covers many of the areas for which my Department is responsible, such as waste management, is often viewed as a source of provision which is raided to pay for pressures that councils face.
	When I put on another hat and debate waste management legislation, many hon. Members rightly complain about our low recycling achievement. Local authorities say that we require them to achieve a doubling or trebling of recycling targets—as I do—and they in turn expect us to fund that, and that is exactly what we did do. In the third year of the spending review 2000, the current year, the increase in the EPCS block is £1.1 billion, which is large. It deals with much more than environmental issues and waste management. But if one suggests taking money from that in order to achieve the Bill's target, there will be complaints that local authorities are not adequately funded for waste management. We cannot have it both ways. If hon. Members want this as devoutly as I want it, they must explain where the money will come from.
	In order to establish the likely costs that the Bill, agreed in Committee, would impose, my Department commissioned an independent study. As I have already said, that produced wildly different results—somewhere between £29 million and £1 billion—so it is difficult to put much reliance on any figure.
	If the Bill had been part of the Government's programme—a key point—its funding would have been an integral part of policy development and included in the spending review process, but that is not the case for a private Member's Bill. The Bill's essence is that a private Member, with the best motives, which I strongly support and for which I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, seeks to insert a demand for a significant stream of Government expenditure, of an unspecified total, in between what the Government have already planned for in their spending review. That is the problem.
	If DEFRA had to find the money for the Bill, it could be done only by reducing expenditure on other energy efficiency programmes. I do not believe that any hon. Member would think that that was the right way to proceed. There would then be no resultant gain in energy efficiency because other programmes would have to be reduced so that this one could grow. That is not the way to proceed.
	In accordance with the local government White Paper, our priorities and the policy areas where we want to set targets for local government will be brokered through the spending review and the national public service agreement for local government, not locked in through legislation. That is the central point. The approach set out in the amendment achieves that aim. Once full funding is available, we will set statutory targets for local authorities, which they will have to meet by given deadlines. That is the significance of this Bill over the HECA. Local authorities will be given the funding and support that they need to undertake the new task, and that is what my hon. Friend, I and other supporters of the Bill hoped that it would achieve from the outset. It will achieve that. I undertake to start discussions with the Local Government Association as soon as resources are available. I can also say that targets will help to ensure that every authority makes a contribution to conserving natural resources and reducing greenhouse gases and fuel poverty.
	Once a target had been set for an authority, that authority would be under a new duty to prepare an energy efficiency report. That would set out measures that the authority considers practicable, cost-effective and likely to result in the target being met. That differs from the energy conservation reports prepared under the old HECA, which did not require the achievement of any given target. That is the crucial point. Instead, they had to set out measures likely to result in significant improvement in energy efficiency, hence my letter of September 2001. The Bill would move away from that imprecise requirement to a much stronger statutory duty to have a report that will achieve a given percentage improvement in domestic energy efficiency by a given date.
	Most of the improvement will in fact be made, as I keep on saying, through non-local authority programmes, such as the energy efficiency commitment and warm front, as well as action by millions of individual householders. The role of authorities is to facilitate and encourage take-up of those programmes and activities as far as they can, and to take action with regard to their own stock. They do not have to achieve the whole target on their own. I fully realise that, but it is difficult to establish the residual amount that will be needed to achieve a 30 per cent. target, if that is what we would like to achieve, after warm front, the energy efficiency commitment and the upgrading of local authority stock have been fully implemented. That is why the requirement would be to achieve the target as far as is reasonably practicable.
	The amendment requires the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales to consult the Local Government Association in England and in Wales when setting domestic energy efficiency targets for energy conservation authorities. Those targets would include a date by which the given improvements were to be made and could be varied. That means requiring a bigger improvement from those authorities that have done the least up to now.
	We all know of authorities that have decided that improving domestic efficiency should be a priority in their area. In that respect, they are good local authorities. They recognise that that can bring about social, economic and environmental benefits for their community. The Bill is not aimed primarily at those authorities. Nor is it aimed at those authorities that have tried hard to make improvements but, because of local conditions, have not been as successful as they hoped. No; it is aimed primarily at authorities that have not even prepared an energy conservation report, and there are some of those. It is aimed at those authorities that have not set a target. There are more of those. It is also aimed at those authorities that have set targets without doing anything to achieve them. It is certainly aimed at them.
	Strictly speaking, all those things were allowed under the HECA. That was not the wish of the Act's promoter, but the way in which it was drafted allowed local authorities that gave low priority to such measures to do so with impunity. That was one of the faults of the Act. However, I recognise that it is not in the spirit of the Act, nor does it provide communities with the leadership and the services that one would expect from local authorities.
	I do not want anyone to think that the Bill is an excuse to stop doing anything until the targets are set. That is an important point. We shall be pursuing local authorities, as we already are, under the HECA. This Bill is not a laggard's charter. Authorities should continue to work towards their existing targets until new targets are agreed, and we shall be chasing them to ensure that that happens. This Bill sends clear signals to authorities currently not taking their responsibilities seriously that this is not acceptable. Authorities that have made little progress to date will have considerably more to do in the future.
	I do not accept the argument that authorities do not have the resources to improve energy efficiency now. Some authorities have been able to make considerable improvements through proactive and imaginative use of existing financial provision. It is important to remember that authorities will not have to meet the full cost of improvements—far from it. The gas and electricity suppliers and warm front will maximise the improvement of energy efficiency in their area.
	A further important element of the proposed approach to target setting is that the targets should be established in consultation with representatives of local government. There are a number of reasons for that. The first is that merely imposing targets on local authorities from above is not compatible with the Government's view of the desirable relationship between central and local government. It is crucial that local authorities take ownership of the targets. The active participation of local authority representatives in developing them will help to achieve that aim, and to ensure that we get robust and stretching targets that deliver the improvements that we all want.
	Variation is another important aspect. Targets can be varied as necessary. The need to improve domestic energy efficiency will not suddenly stop in 2010. Authorities should not rest on their laurels once they have met their targets. Some authorities have attained 20 per cent. improvements, so they are already well on their way. The amendment will allow the targets to be revised as necessary, following the same consultative approach. That will make the HECA a more flexible tool to help to deliver national objectives. For example, under the climate change programme we will systematically have to move from the Kyoto protocol target of 5 per cent. or the United Kingdom's commitment to 12.5 per cent. towards 40, 50, 60 or 70 per cent. over the next few decades, and energy efficiency is a key part of achieving that.
	In addition to introducing a new HECA regime once targets are set, the amendment also makes changes to two provisions agreed in Committee.

Brian Iddon: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher: I shall finish this rather technical little section, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
	Clause 1(6) requires authorities to keep a copy of any report available for inspection by the public. Clause 1(4) deals with the duty on registered social landlords to provide information to local authorities to help with their HECA reporting. It was agreed in Committee that it would be good practice for authorities to keep a copy of any HECA report available for inspection by the public free of charge. Under the 1995 Act, authorities are already obliged to publish their reports, but that is not to say that they are always readily accessible to interested members of the public. That point was made in Committee, and I agree with it. It would be in the interests of local accountability and access to information for those documents to be open to public inspection.
	On further reflection, we agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown that it would be good practice for authorities to allow members of the public to make copies of reports. They can be quite lengthy and detailed, and it is not always possible for the public to find all they want from the reports at one sitting. They may also want to compare different authorities' reports, and that can be done only if they can take away copies of the reports. Rather than allowing them to be taken away, which runs the risk of their not being returned, it seems sensible for the authority to provide copies if required.
	It is important to balance these interests against the potential additional burden on authorities of meeting this new requirement. No one would want authorities to be faced with demands for high numbers of copies at their own expense. It is only right for authorities to be able to make a reasonable charge to cover the cost of providing copying facilities. I stress the word "reasonable", because this should not turn into an important source of income. It is meant merely to cover their costs, and no more. It would be for authorities to determine their own arrangements.
	I am sorry that it has taken so long to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon).

Brian Iddon: I am concerned about paragraph (5) of the amendment. Listening to my right hon. Friend, I get the impression that each local authority will be allowed to negotiate its own target. Is that the case, or will the Local Government Association, in liaison with its local authority members, set a national target that all local authorities will be expected to meet? If they do not meet the target, what sanctions can the Government apply?

Michael Meacher: I know that there has been concern that, by inserting a requirement that there should be consultation with the LGA in England and Wales, individual local authorities or the LGA might have a veto. I do not for one second believe that that would be the case. Under the amendment, the proposal is to provide an income stream so that local authorities are able to achieve this improvement in energy efficiency, which will reduce the cost of keeping their housing stock warm. I do not think that there is any question of a veto.
	The target will be set not by the LGA, but by the Secretary of State in consultation with the LGA. The key point is that the measure will be funded, so it will be a statutory requirement. Like every statutory requirement, local authorities will be obliged to achieve it. So long as funding is available, I see no reason why they should not achieve it.

Colin Challen: Is it conceivable that a local authority or the LGA could set a target higher than 30 per cent. by 2010 and expect the funding for it?

Michael Meacher: The target will be set by the Secretary of State, whose primary concern will be to achieve an improvement in the energy efficiency of local authorities that up till now have had a poor record—anything from 0 to 5 per cent. is a poor record, given that the Act came into force six years ago.
	I think I can say without fear of refutation that the Secretary of State will not, at this stage, set targets beyond 30 per cent. However, as we begin to move in that direction across the country, targets can be varied. If it is the intention after 2010 to go significantly further—I can well believe that it will be—a target may well be set beyond 30 per cent., but we are a long way from achieving that. Achievement towards the 30 per cent. target after six years is about 6 per cent. on average, with some local authorities achieving 20 per cent. If they get up to 30 per cent., there is no reason why they should not, for their own good reasons, go beyond that, but that is different from the Government setting that as a target.
	The amendment would enable the appropriate Minister to require registered social landlords—which is the phrase used to describe housing associations—to copy to the local authority information relating to the energy efficiency of their housing stock in the area. The proposed amendment achieves the objectives of clause 1(4) as agreed in Committee, but more simply and straightforwardly.
	As currently drafted, clause 1(4) links the duty of registered social landlords to provide information to local authorities with section 35 of the Housing Act 1996 and the information provided to the Housing Corporation under that section on a number of aspects of performance, including energy efficiency. More specifically, as currently drafted, clause 1(4) links the duty of registered social landlords to provide information to local authorities with the power in section 35(2) for the corporation to issue a direction to registered social landlords to provide information. Local authorities need this to assist with their duty under the HECA to draw up progress reports in relation to the residential accommodation in their areas. By providing for local authorities to receive copies of information already provided by registered social landlords to the Housing Corporation, we believe the burden on registered social landlords will be lessened.
	Some registered social landlords work across a number of local authority boundaries and will be required to disaggregate the information about their stock at local authority level. However, we aim to mitigate the burden of this as far as possible by providing for the appropriate Minister to prescribe in secondary legislation the information to be provided by registered social landlords, in what form, the timing and so on. We will be consulting representatives of local authorities and registered social landlords on all of these details.
	After that lengthy comment on amendment No. 11, I shall now respond to amendment (a) to amendment No. 11. This amendment would have the effect of including a statement in the Bill that it is a "principal aim" of Government to achieve an improvement in domestic energy efficiency of at least 30 per cent. by the end of 2010. The persistent interventions by the hon. Member for Woolwich—

Peter Bottomley: Worthing.

Michael Meacher: I am going back several elections. His interventions may be the answer. I cannot accept the amendment. My first reason is that it would lead to odd legislation. It is not appropriate to make general statements about aims or principles in legislation. I recognise that that is not without precedent, but a principal aim is not binding on the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. The whole point of the Bill is to have binding commitments. The measure would be simply presentational; there is nothing wrong with that, but that is all it would be. Nor do the Secretary of State or the National Assembly need powers to make statements of general principle. I wonder what useful purpose that would serve, other than a presentational one.
	There are also difficulties in terms of policy. It would be premature for the Government to make a statement of principle about the target we hope to achieve in relation to improving domestic energy efficiency at this stage. My Department is currently preparing our domestic energy efficiency strategy. This is in response to the performance and innovation unit's energy review, which recommended that the Government should develop a long-term framework. I am sure that that is right.
	The PIU has suggested that the framework include an aspirational target, not a binding target. It is also a report to, and not by, Government. The aspirational target is for a 20 per cent. improvement by 2010 and a further 20 per cent. improvement by 2020. That is desirable, if we can achieve it. However, before the Government respond, we have to decide how that will be funded. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment.
	Another reason is the impact the amendment would have on the consultative process. As I have said, the Government will have to consult the LGA on the targets, which will also have to be commensurate with the funding available. It would be odd to dictate, as the amendment suggests, by an overarching statement in this way, prior to the funding being available. That might undermine the consultative approach to target setting.
	I wish to speak finally to Government amendment No. 12, which deals with a relatively technical matter. The purpose of this amendment is to delete lines 19 to 22 of clause 1. These define various terms used in the Bill, as agreed in Committee. The definitions are not necessary, since the Bill would amend the original HECA legislation and these terms are already defined there.
	Government amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment to the long title of the Bill. It is more appropriate to use the broader term "residential accommodation", as defined in the HECA. This reflects the fact that the Bill also covers houses in multiple occupation, caravans and houseboats.
	That is not exactly a ringing declaration on which to end a speech on what I genuinely think is an important part of the Bill, which I hope has widespread support. It will provide for the first time the basis for the setting of statutory targets that local authorities will be obliged to achieve in terms of improving energy efficiency within a given guideline. As soon as the Government have the finance to do that—I am very keen that we have that finance—we will implement this important part of the Bill.

Gregory Barker: I rise to support amendment (a) to amendment No. 11, tabled in my name and supported by numerous colleagues. I also wish to make a number of direct points about amendment No. 11, tabled in the Minister's name.
	I hope that amendment (a) will win widespread support; it deserves to. Its origins lie not with me, but with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), the promoter of the Bill. I pay full and warm tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all he has done to bring the Bill through the House, but I cannot agree with his sad conclusions about this crucial clause.
	There has been a very large degree of cross-party consensus on this Bill. Its aims have found vocal support right across the Chamber; indeed, among its earliest supporters was the Minister. But if the Government will not accept my amendment, all the hard work that has gone into the Bill, and all the hopes and aspirations invested in it, will have been totally and utterly wasted.
	We all want a step change in Britain's energy efficiency, and we all want to end fuel poverty, but it is simply no good to will the end if you refuse to will the means. Mouthing the mantra is simply not good enough. Without amendment (a), the Bill is a toothless sham and the Minister knows it. The difference between amendment No. 11, in the Minister's name, and amendment (a) in mine is like the difference between black and white: it could not be starker.
	If passed, amendment No. 11 will gut this Bill. It will allow the Secretary of State to set targets for local authorities entirely at his or her discretion. It does not require him or her to set any specific target; we are all left just hoping the Minister will set one. Amendment No. 11 allows the Minister to set any target or none. There is no mandatory benchmark or statutory commitment.
	The Government amendment dilutes this Bill into wishy-washy good intentions, totally reliant on ministerial discretion. Amendment (a) by contrast, would set a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to set meaningful targets. He would still have the freedom to set different targets for different authorities, but the amendment would require him to have a "principal aim " of a 30 per cent. improvement between 1996 and 2010; exactly what the Government guidance already calls for.
	The drafting of amendment (a) also allows the Secretary of State to increase the scale of central programmes, perhaps under the warm homes strategy, and reflect that in the targets that he sets, over which, under amendment (a), he would still have huge flexibility and discretion. Without amendment (a), I would have grave doubts over whether amendment No. 11 will in any way improve local authorities' performance under the 1995 Act.
	The Minister's amendment effectively rewrites part 1, and does so in such a way that if the Secretary of State does nothing at all, he or she will not be in breach of the legislation. That is the Government's wrecking amendment in a nutshell: the Minister may do nothing—absolutely nothing at all—and still not be in breach of the Bill. Is that truly what Members on both sides of the House have worked so hard for?
	I know that the Minister will want to assure us that he will not take that route, that he intends to act and that arch sceptics who doubt him are simply being unfair. I fully accept that he is personally committed to environmental protection, including energy efficiency, yet when the House passes a law, we should not, in my view, leave so much discretion to the Executive, whatever their political complexion. A law that says, "You can do this or not do it—it's entirely up to you," is not much of a law. In fact, its passage through the House would be a complete waste of time.

Colin Challen: As a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my healthy scepticism about the meaning of targets. Our meeting on Wednesday went into that point in great depth. If he is asking the House to agree to his amendment, he should give some idea of its financial cost. It would also help me, as one who is genuinely torn on the subject, to hear his assessment of how much progress has been made in the seven years since the 1995 Act was passed.

Gregory Barker: I shall certainly come to the progress, but I cannot give any further indications, other than the £29 million to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred. As colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee, we saw how the Minister shies away from meaningful targets when we quizzed him on the meaning of life indicators. On that, I believe, the House should hold him to account.
	In the Standing Committee, the Minister began by recognising the flaws in the HECA, which the Bill is intended to address:
	"The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 is groundbreaking. As all hon. Members recognise, it is flawed in important respects, especially in terms of targets, enforcements and time scales."
	He continued by offering his support in solving these flaws:
	"I enter unreservedly into the spirit of trying to achieve worthwhile targets and the enforcement mechanisms to ensure that they are met . . . it is important to ensure that the target that we set has a target date and that there are mechanisms in place to give plausibility to the belief that the target will be met in time. I accept that. "
	Terrific words, Minister, yet amendment No. 11 sets no statutory target and no statutory target date, and includes no statutory mechanism whatever to ensure that targets are met.
	The Minister told the Committee he would
	"much prefer to set a target and just fail to reach it, yet make a serious attempt, than to avoid setting a target and produce a wet and feeble response. "—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 January 2002; c. 16–18.]
	What on earth has happened? If this is not a "wet and feeble" legislative response, then I do not know what is. If the Government crush amendment (a) and in so doing completely fillet the Bill, it will look to the entire outside world as though the Government's greenest Minister has been nobbled.
	Of course, the House needs to be certain that the principal aim of a 30 per cent. improvement is realistic and achievable. It is, but let me remind the House of several points. First, the 30 per cent. target that I recommend has been in Government guidance since the HECA was passed and implemented. Although local authorities have set slightly varying targets, 30 per cent. is the average in their strategies. Plainly, central Government think the target achievable, or they would not have guided councils to meet it. Equally plainly, the vast majority of local authorities have plans to meet the target—it must be achievable.
	Furthermore, the recent performance and innovation unit report, which the Minister referred to, calls for a 20 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency by 2010 from current levels. While at first glance that appears to be a smaller target, the PIU is calling for it to be achieved in just eight years, as it expects an improvement from current levels. The 30 per cent. target required by amendment (a) and in HECA guidance is based on a 1996 baseline, giving 14 years for it to be reached. With some progress already made, effectively the two targets are identical.
	There are controversial points in the PIU report, but the energy efficiency targets have not been regarded as controversial. The Environmental Audit Committee thought those targets pretty tame. By supporting amendment (a) the Government would show that they were taking the energy report seriously; opposing ambitious statutory targets would suggest that the report was a waste of time.
	Since 14 April, 211 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 1136, which was tabled by the promoter of the Bill. Indeed, 146 Labour MPs have signed up to a motion that welcomes the 30 per cent. target and calls for the Bill to
	"make the targets statutory thus ensuring that they are met".
	That is the crux of my amendment—giving the Bill the teeth it was always intended to have. I hope and trust that all colleagues right across the House will make good their public support, and support amendment (a).

Alan Simpson: I begin with praise and some thank-yous. Despite all the areas that we need to address and which may be contentious, we ought to recognise how much has gone into bringing before the House a Bill that it is important to pass. In recognising how we have reached this point, we must pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who has sweated blood to get the legislation here in any form. The whole House owes him great praise and credit for that.
	I also put on record my praise for the Minister. All the way through, he has been a stalwart campaigner on our objectives of eradicating fuel poverty and addressing the climate change targets which the Government have already set for themselves. It would be wrong to dress this up in any way as an act of last-minute betrayal by, I think, probably the best Environment Minister that the House has ever had.
	While I am singing praises, it would be remiss not to recognise the contributions made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, during proceedings in Committee and work done in the all-party warm homes group, which I have the genuine privilege to chair, towards building a huge cross-party consensus on supporting our shared objective of ending fuel poverty in Britain. It has not been an issue where we have fallen out on party lines.
	The question that we have sought to deal with over the 10 years that I have been in Parliament, moving it on year by year, stage by stage, has been whether we can set the objective of eradicating fuel poverty and, now that we have, trying to be clear about the mechanisms for doing so.
	Every part of the political process in the House has played a constructive part, as have many organisations outside, which have given us amazing backing. The Local Government Association, the National Federation of Housing Associations, environmental groups, poverty groups and responsible landlords have, in bringing this Bill back before the House, played constructive parts. With or without the shortcomings of amendment No. 11, it is important to recognise that there are massive gains in passing a Bill that specifically refers to fuel poverty and that does something specific about what is arguably the hardest sector of housing for fuel poverty: houses in multiple occupation. I do not intend to speak on those proposals, but I wanted to say how important they are as benchmarks of achievement.
	The central issue is about targets and time scale. Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown thanked Members who had helped him to bring the Bill this far. I am sure that he will not mind me telling the House that he thanked them for the individual parts that they had played in giving him what he described as a genuinely life-shortening experience. The life- shortening part has been the frustration of negotiations about the adequacy and accuracy of clauses that were to be included in the Bill. It has been a mind-bogglingly frustrating experience, but it is still possible for us to improve what is a worthwhile Bill to make it a genuine tribute to the whole House.
	Whether they are dealt with in the Bill or not, the issues surrounding targets and time scale will be the ones that dog us in the debate about the elimination of fuel poverty. They will dog us in every constituency, in every debate and in every Government policy. Unless and until we deal with them, we will not be perceived as credibly committed to delivering what we say we are committed to on paper and within our legal framework.
	The original intention of the Bill was to try to fill a gap. At one stage, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown was looking at the gaps that the Bill was trying to fill, he told us that we were currently committed to the eradication of fuel poverty in Britain within 15 years. Thanks to the case that Friends of the Earth brought before the High Court, we now know that that is the eradication of all fuel poverty—not some, a lot or the majority, but all. We have a legal duty to deliver on that target.
	We also know the Government have made commitments on climate change obligations and the Kyoto targets, and that part of the legacy of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 was the ministerial guidance notes that said clearly that we were committed to 30 per cent. improvements in energy efficiency by 2010. Those guidance notes remain in place and continue to be the ones that local authorities across the land attempt to work to. The Minister is right that many of those local authorities have not only taken those guidelines seriously, but attempted to deliver on them. We should not malign local authorities by saying that they treat the guidance as disposable. Many of the best local authorities have given a lead that the House should pay tribute to and feel proud of.
	In the course of pulling those points together and putting targets in the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown once said to me in the midst of negotiations that appeared to be going nowhere, "Listen. I am only trying to be helpful, damn it." He has been damnably helpful throughout the process in trying to put those targets in the Bill. So why should we impale ourselves on proposals that fail to refer to targets or time scale?
	As the Minister said, in part, the argument is about money. It is also about whether the particular Ministry concerned has the power to set that target in its Bill. However, there is great confusion in the arguments that have been presented to the Minister. Whether or not he or his Cabinet colleagues will be convinced of them when they have had greater time to scrutinise them is another matter.

Sue Doughty: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, during the passage of the Bill, the Minister and his Ministry seemed to query how much the proposal would cost and then pick out of the air the figure that they liked best—up to £1 billion? Had we behaved like that in previous lives and adopted such weak management techniques in trying to establish the cost of a programme, we would have been out of the door fairly quickly. I am curious to know how the Department did not know the cost of implementation during the passage of the Bill.

Alan Simpson: That is a fair question. It is important to recognise that the figures have often been used in a somewhat vicarious fashion. If it suits to have a low figure, a low figure has been proposed. If it suits to have an exorbitantly high figure, that has been thrown in to block the idea that it is a meetable target. We may be frightened by the wildest target of £1 billion, but it will not be too long before we have a duty as a House to reflect on who will meet the £80 billion residual costs of public liability that we propose to relieve British Nuclear Fuels of. Whose budget will that come from, or does the Minister have it in his? I am not sure whether he has the answer tucked in his pocket somewhere, but my point shows that we can make commitments in principle, even though we do not know entirely where the costs will be met from. However, it is right to do so.
	My worry about new clause 1 is that it probably takes us further back from, and weakens, HECA. New section 2A(1) of amendment No. 11 states:
	"Where a target applies for the time being"
	it should be the duty of—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing amendment (a) and amendment No. 11, not new clause 1.

Alan Simpson: I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted the House to be aware of the gaps that the amendment will seek to cover.
	We have signed up to a change of wording that no longer requires authorities by law to produce a report. We have now said to them, "Where you do produce a report, for the time being, you shall have a duty." So authorities that no longer produce reports do not have a duty. Only measures that are likely to result in the target being met are then required.
	What if an authority sets a target of zero? It will not fall foul of the new requirements. It will not be possible to write guidance that says, "Where are you in respect of the 30 per cent. targets?" What if they set the Maldon target? Maldon is often cited as an authority that has done very little to meet the targets set out in the guidance notes. What would happen if Maldon said that its target was to deliver not very much and that its progress report would say only that it was doing so not very quickly? That approach would be compliant with the Bill as amended.
	The saving grace was always the provision that allows the Minister or Secretary of State the power to intervene. If it stated that this particular Minister for the Environment had power to intervene, I would be happy, as I have inordinate confidence in his inclination to intervene in entirely beneficial and laudable ways, but the Bill leaves things much more open and the amendment seeks to narrow that provision in important ways. It does not narrow it as much as I would like, but I shall deal with that point in a moment.
	I am worried that the Minister appears to have been told that he needed to change the Bill that has returned to the Floor of the House because of the provision in clause 1 stating that energy conservation authorities
	"shall take all . . . steps as are reasonably practicable to implement the measures set out in any energy conservation report prepared by the authority."
	That was the position under HECA and the provision was intended simply to make it statutory. I think that the Minister was told that he could not introduce such provision, however, as he would fall foul of the "new burdens obligations" that have mysteriously entered into the language of governance.
	The suggestion about telling authorities that they will not be required to do what they are supposed to be doing and about the risk of incurring extra costs is a strange notion. My question is: why are they not already doing what they are supposed to be doing? It seems bizarre to talk about an existing responsibility not being incorporated in the framework of all the programmes that the Government have presented to the energy conservation authorities and on which many of them have indeed delivered. I find bizarre the reinterpretation of that requirement as a new burden.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge about energy efficiency and all the matters under discussion is instanced by the fact that he is chairman of the all-party group on warm homes. Will he confirm that of about 360 relevant authorities, some 350 have agreed targets? Only about 10 or a dozen do not have such targets. If the amendment were accepted, the 350 with targets would be completely let off the hook and there would be no possibility of requiring the recalcitrant 10 or a dozen authorities to set targets.

Alan Simpson: I am not certain about that. Worryingly, it appears that a new loophole might be introduced by including in the Bill the phrase
	"where a target applies for the time being".
	The provision leaves it open to the 350 energy conservation authorities that already have targets to say that they will stop their work to achieve them. What action can be taken if there are no targets for the time being? There is great confusion about the meaning of the wording that has been presented to the Minister to be tabled in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown at half-past the eleventh hour.
	That is one of my great complaints about the overall process. By and large, although Ministers may not be the last to see the amendments that are tabled in their names, they may see them only just before the rest of us get to do so and are asked to approve them. That is a very poor way of exercising a parliamentary duty of scrutiny in delivering good legislation. I am deeply worried about the quality of the advice that is being given to Ministers and which the House is being asked to endorse. My concern is based not only on the technical quality of the advice, but on whether there is a sub-agenda about which the House should be even more concerned. We are told about the problem of obligations that introduce new burdens, but I think that we are caught between a misunderstanding of responsibilities and an uncomfortable reality—a misunderstanding of what the new burdens obligation might mean and the stronger reality of the no-burdens inclination of those who advise the Government.
	When the original HECA reports were scrutinised by Ministers and other hon. Members, a huge discrepancy was clearly evident; many authorities had failed to deliver very much at all. In response, the Minister for the Environment said in opening the consultation that he would be looking for a more robust set of targets, which reflected the fact that the worst had to be required to catch up with the rest.
	It was in that context that the Minister was subsequently advised that he could not take such action because of the new burdens obligation. The consultations with local authorities and other organisations overwhelmingly favoured the introduction of tougher targets. Local government, communities and those campaigning on fuel poverty all wanted such targets. However, it was suggested by civil servants in his Department that, rather than strengthen the targets, we should do away with them altogether. It was argued that targets got in the way, which flew in the face of the remit that he had set for the consultation process.
	It is sad that the same civil service rewording of that inclination has returned to the House in the form of amendment No. 11. What has happened may be the result of a bizarre sense of self-protection, on the basis that the departmental record of implementing the 1995 Act shows that very little has been done to monitor the reporting that should have taken place. The requirement was one of those reluctant obligations that have only latterly been taken on board. When the Minister began to see just how wide the disparities in performance were, he was the one who said that the regime had to be toughened up. Institutionally, however, if he had not driven the requirement, it would not have gone anywhere.
	As I said, the consultations related more to ways in which targets could be avoided than to how they could be delivered. Furthermore, I think that they were underpinned by a bizarre presumption that civil servants can best protect Ministers by giving them the fewest possible obligations. It is presumed that that approach will protect Ministers' backs against criticism; how can one be criticised for not delivering something to which one was not committed? That is an interesting notion of survival, but a poor way of giving the answers that the public want from us in terms of delivering an end to fuel poverty.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has talked about commitment. The Minister for Industry and Energy told the Environmental Audit Committee last week that, with commitment, the 30 per cent. target could be achieved. The argument of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) leaves us wondering whether the Treasury has lost the will to realise the Government's commitment. The point about whether it should be specified in the Bill is underpinned by the question whether the Government have the commitment that, according to the Minister for Industry and Energy last week, is needed to achieve the target. Without the commitment, how can the target be achieved?

Alan Simpson: I do not believe that the Treasury has lost the will or that the Minister has lost a battle with the Treasury. I do not believe that a battle has taken place. There is a different, legitimate problem of confusion about how modernised government works. I shall consider that shortly because it is an important obstacle that we must tackle, not only in the Home Energy Conservation Bill but in others.
	I am worried that the use of parliamentary counsel and the drafting and timing of amendments has worked to the serious disadvantage and disempowerment of Parliament and Ministers. That is why I speak in favour of amendment (a), which is a good amendment. I know that because my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown drafted it. Apart from a change of wording to provide for the original HECA targets rather than those set out by the performance and innovation unit—they are pretty indistinguishable—amendment (a) is almost exactly the same as the amendment that my hon. Friend drafted through parliamentary counsel.
	The amendment was not dreamt up on the back of a cigarette packet. My hon. Friend had the wit and wisdom to assume the right to go to parliamentary counsel to get amendments drafted to ensure that they were good. We were fortunate in having someone who had been a parliamentary counsel for more than 20 years and drafted Treasury Bills to produce the wording that we are considering. It is therefore not fly-by-night wording; it was produced by parliamentary counsel in good time, circulated for consultation, and not rushed at the last minute. That is the opposite of using parliamentary counsel to undertake a last-minute hijack of Ministers and Members of Parliament.
	However, if we are considering overcoming the problem of not being able to tackle targets because they are connected to budgets, let us do a reality check with other Government commitments. We are committed to ending child poverty in the decade, we have a legal commitment to end fuel poverty in 15 years and it is Government policy to meet the Kyoto targets. None of the moneys for those commitments is currently in the budget of the Minister for the Environment or that of anyone else, but that does not stop us making them. They are commitments in principle to deliver an outcome. The timetable will be measured against the outcome.
	The most important reason for accepting the amendment is that it is wrong to say that a commitment cannot be made in principle because the money is not in a single Department's budget or because we would fall foul of the new burdens obligation if we did otherwise. There are many ways in which the costs can be met. Proposals in part 3 to introduce a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation will, through regulation, make massive contributions towards the 30 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency. The money will not have to come out of the Minister's budget but be found as a result of Government legislation.
	Stock transfers have already taken place. The Minister spoke about requiring the Housing Corporation to account to local authorities. The same duties will be placed on housing associations and the Housing Corporation. They welcome that because the money will come from their finances and commitments.
	Most important, we know from the consultations of the warm homes group that the private sector is desperately keen for us to set targets and time scales. Through its energy efficiency contributions, it is an active and willing partner of local authorities in the energy partnerships that it is constructing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) asked how, in areas where 80 per cent. of the worst properties are privately owned, we persuade or put an arm lock on people from the private or public sector to do something that they have no legal duty to do. The answer is probably to use the same methods as under the Clean Air Act 1956, which provided for statutory duties.
	The energy industry has said that if we provide the targets and timetable, it will not have to cajole people into being more energy conscious; it can offer solutions. Unless we offer targets and timetables, the industry is perceived as bullying to sell its products. That is hopeless. The industry has asked for the targets so that it can help to foot the bill.
	I should like the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) to be right that amendment (a) will put an arm lock on the Government and teeth into otherwise toothless legislation.
	In truth, however, the amendment being proposed is much more modest and limited than I would wish it to be. It talks only about a "principal aim", not about a statutory duty. The idea of putting a principal aim on the face of the Bill was, in fact, undertaken by the Government in 1995—the same year the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 was passed—in the Environment Act 1995. Section 4(1) of the Environment Act states:
	"It shall be the principal aim of the Agency . . . "—
	the Environment Agency—
	"so to protect or enhance the environment . . . as to make the contribution towards attaining the objective of achieving sustainable development".
	A principal aim is set out in that Act, and that is all that this amendment would achieve. It would not compel a Minister to say or do anything at any particular time. It would simply make a requirement that, when the Secretary of State chose to say anything about energy efficiency targets, it would be against the benchmark measure of meeting
	"an improvement in energy efficiency in residential accommodation of at least 30 per cent. by the end of 2010, taking 1st January 1996 as the base line date."
	That is not a draconian power. It simply asks the Minister to accept the duty to say something useful, when he chooses to say something. It suggests, to echo a phrase from the Clinton campaign, that we put on our ministerial or parliamentary wall a plaque that says, "It's targets and time scales, stupid." That is what the public expect us to do, it is what the amendment asks us to do, and I hope that the House will have the sense to do it.

Malcolm Bruce: I rise to support amendment (a), which puts back into the Bill a measure that reflected the prime purpose of the Bill in the first place. While I understand the Minister saying that he has good intentions, and that if he could find the money, he would want to meet the targets—I think that we all agree that he, personally, means that—we would need a piece of legislation to achieve that, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) has pointed out.
	Indeed, it is often ministerial practice to resist amendments by saying, "I give you my assurance that the Government are committed to this." The purpose of legislation is to commit every Government—and, of course, local authorities—to achieving objectives, and we need legislation to be specific. As has been said, the Minister for Industry and Energy has suggested that the target that is, for all practical purposes, contained in this amendment is achievable in the time scale, "with commitment". Obviously, the matter for concern here is whether that commitment exists in the Government to deliver on that target.
	I can understand the reticence of Ministers in relation to targets. I can specifically understand the reticence of this Minister in that respect. He is probably responsible for more targets than anyone else, many of them imposed from the EU and elsewhere, and he is finding it difficult to produce answers to demonstrate that those targets are being met. I say that in good faith. Targets being missed, however, are not the same as targets being irrelevant. Targets are there to be hit, but, sometimes, underachieving does not mean that we are not making progress. So long as there is a genuine drive to achieve the targets and a policy to ensure real movement towards them, a substantial percentage of what we are trying to achieve will be delivered. Not having targets, however, leaves us wondering why we are all here.
	This is another issue on which the Minister is unable to provide any useful figures. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) has suggested that, in any case, even at the global top end of the figures quoted, they would not all be from central Government. There would also be private sector figures, and figures from local authorities with different budgets. So, even at the top end, the figure is not terrifying. The data are also spread over a substantial period of time.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has suggested, there never seems to be any constraint when we need to go to war. The Government like to talk about a war on poverty. Indeed, the Minister's Department has spent billions of pounds dealing with BSE and foot and mouth disease; that was not budgeted for.

Michael Meacher: And fridges.

Malcolm Bruce: Fridges have not yet cost billions, although millions have certainly had to be found to deal with the problem.
	There is a serious point here. I am entirely unconvinced that the money constraint is legitimate. I believe that the amount we are discussing is achievable, and would enable us to give the authorities responsible for reducing fuel poverty the further momentum that they need, while also inspiring those suffering from fuel poverty with the hope that there is a real will to end it.
	I represent a Scottish constituency. The Bill applies only to England and Wales, but for that very reason I consider the amendment exceptionally helpful. If legislation for England and Wales sets a target, Scotland and Northern Ireland can hardly ignore the implications of that signal. I am not suggesting that they do not want to deal with fuel poverty.
	This is a United Kingdom problem. Scotland and Northern Ireland are experiencing some of the worst climatic conditions in the UK, and have some of the worst-insulated houses. They have a real stake in the momentum behind the campaign. I do not think that the Bill is relevant only to England and Wales.
	As I said on Second Reading, I am depressed to note that, after the more than 20 years that I have been involved in, and campaigning on, energy and fuel-poverty issues, we seem to be just as engaged with the severity of a problem that we should have solved years ago. It appears to be a peculiarly British problem. Other countries with climates just as severe as ours seem to have managed, partly through good building design and partly by taking measures to insulate homes, to provide the necessary protection against wasteful, inefficient and expensive forms of heating that poor people cannot afford. It is deeply disappointing that, having gone this far down the road with a Minister who we all agree has a genuine dedication to the cause, the Government seem unable to accept a commitment that would make the Bill meaningful.
	As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, there is a real danger that if the amendment is not passed, it will be assumed that we can ease up on the pressure we are already applying. Nothing could be worse than our passing legislation that put us into reverse. Let me tell the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) that, of course I want the Bill, of course I want the declarations of good intent, and of course I note the Minister's assurance that he will come up with targets and will find the money. I am sure that the Minister means that, but—I mean no disrespect to him—he may not be the Minister this time next year. He may well have been replaced by someone who does not have his commitment.
	I do not want to be too sensitive about this, but the difficulties that we sometimes experience with the Minister are caused not by him, but by his inability to translate his will into practical action because of those around and above him. He is not well served by his Department or by his ministerial colleagues—I name no names. That has resulted in the present position.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South almost provoked me into saying that the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken us less than 12 months, while the campaign to abolish the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took many years. The campaign to abolish DEFRA is already in full cry. The Department should never have been created: it does not work, it is a shambles, and it needs to be abolished as soon as possible.
	The environment, and the commitment to deliver policies that will make a real difference to people's lives, require a Minister of the standard of the Minister we have, with a Department behind him that is willing to make that happen. If the House is serious about what it is trying to do, it will support amendment (a).

Brian Iddon: Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), for several decades I have been surprised by the slowness with which successive Governments have addressed the difficult subject of fuel poverty and energy efficiency. They appear to have been dragged kicking and screaming into the new century. Most of the progress in these matters has been made by the introduction of private Member's Bills in 1995 and 2000 and now in 2002. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) said about my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, for whom I have a great deal of respect.
	I always find it surprising that Governments have not grasped this issue and published a Government Bill dealing with all energy policy, including the branch that we are addressing today. We should bear in mind the fact that the Bill has the support of more than 100 local authorities, including my own. Not one of those local authorities has expressed the view that the targets that were originally set out in the Bill are unachievable.
	I am concerned by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said this morning, as it will send the wrong signals to people out there who are involved in this policy area. The figure of 30 per cent. by 2010 was set by the Conservative Government in 1996. Earlier in the debate, my right hon. Friend said that the Conservatives did nothing about that target and made no money available. However they had just one year—1996–97. We have had a Labour Government for the past five years, so my right hon. Friend's criticism of the Conservative Government went a bit over the top and was an implicit criticism of our own Government, who have not made sufficient progress. My right hon. Friend has admitted that by his criticism of the targets.
	Throughout the process, the 30 per cent. figure has been highlighted. It has been in the headlines and the literature; it has been pushed to local authorities and mentioned in debates in the House. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, although I understand that there was some backing off there, but this is the first time on the Floor of the House that the Government have backed off from the 30 per cent. target, which I still think is achievable.
	I am torn between the two amendments. My heart tells me to support amendment (a) to amendment No. 11. I signed early-day motion 1136, which referred to the target of 30 per cent. as achievable. I am firmly behind the target and I thought that the Government were too.
	We have been reminded today that it is not a target, but an aim. I certainly saw it as an achievable target, but now the word "aim" is being used. I am concerned that today's debate is sending the wrong signal to all the people who have been struggling to achieve the 30 per cent. target, whether or not we are now behind in terms of achieving it.
	I have to ask my right hon. Friend where the money has gone. He will no doubt remind us that for two years we continued to operate the Conservative budget; but we have had our own budget for three years now. The comprehensive spending review is currently under discussion and the results will be published this summer. If we are behind the target, I must ask my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he has done this—whether he has put up a vigorous argument to the effect that we must put money behind our political will to deliver the target of 30 per cent. by 2010.
	Like others, I am concerned that if we accept amendment No. 11 the figure of 30 per cent. will no longer be in the Bill. What does my right hon. Friend propose to do to avoid sending out the wrong signals today? Is he going to campaign vigorously for a figure of at least 30 per cent., or do I detect a change of policy? Are the Government backing off from that figure? The Minister must be categorical about the matter, otherwise many outside the House will be very disappointed with his comments. That said, I genuinely believe that he is committed to delivering on the environment, and I have a great deal of respect for him.
	In conclusion, there is one thought that might persuade me to vote for amendment (a): if we have a Conservative Government by 2010, it is they who will be stuck with the 30 per cent. figure.

Sydney Chapman: I should point out to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) that it was a Conservative Government who introduced the target. However, I agree that, if that Government were still in power today and had not made financial provisions to promote the target, the Minister's criticism would be correct. The reality is, however, that the Minister was being a little unfair.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker), who introduced amendment (a)—of which I am a sponsor—has virtually said it all, and the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), and for Bolton, South-East have said the rest. I shall sum up by making three points. First, the amendment would reintroduce a provision that was included in the original Bill. Secondly, although we could have watered down the phrase to "an aim", the correct phrase is "principal aim", given that the aim is indeed principal to the Bill. Having said that, I would have preferred the phrase "statutory duty". Thirdly, Government policies are littered with targets—from the promotion of health care to the Kyoto commitment—and I see no reason why Government policy should require them to resist amendment (a).
	The Minister has rightly been praised for his record on matters environmental, but if he cannot accept this modest amendment, I am afraid that just a small blot will appear on his otherwise luminous green escutcheon.

Jonathan Sayeed: I begin with a little consensus. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition are happy to accept Government amendments Nos. 12 and 8. Here endeth the consensus.
	The Minister's reaction to any form of justified criticism is outraged bombast. I must warn him that my remarks will raise his blood pressure, so I hope that he has his tablets with him. First, I offer particular congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker), who has done this House a considerable service by speaking extremely cogently to amendment (a) to amendment No. 11, and by persuading Members on both sides of the House of the merits of his case.
	One person whom my hon. Friend did not have to persuade, however, was the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). He has been an extraordinarily doughty fighter in the warm homes group, which owes him a considerable debt of gratitude. He has generously praised my party for doing its level best to support the Bill in every way through all its stages, and in doing so to improve it, and I thank him for that.
	The Bill was first published on 18 July 2001. It received its Second Reading on 30 November 2001. Despite the fact that it was published some eight months ago, it was only some 26 hours ago, on Thursday morning—at the last moment possible—that substantial amendments to the Bill, tabled by the Government, were published. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South touched on the question of why it has taken so long for the Department to produce substantial amendments. I know that discussion has to take place between interested parties, but it is a disgrace that the amendments have been tabled in a way that makes it almost impossible to ensure proper understanding of them or to table subsequent amendments. It is a shabby abuse and misuse of parliamentary procedure. It is designed to stifle dissent, inhibit comment and curtail debate. The Minister should have dealt robustly with those civil servants and other Ministers who have brought him to this pass.
	The Government have acted in that way because they do not dare to be seen to kill a Bill that seeks to promote energy conservation, to eradicate fuel poverty and to drive out bad landlords. The Minister has permitted the Bill to be gutted of much of its meaning. I am deeply disappointed by the Minister. He knows that in Committee—on which the Labour party had a substantial majority—the Government's proposals were defeated by 12 votes to two. So on Report the Government have tabled amendments that strip out much of the meaning of the Bill.
	The evidence is clear. We rightly wanted the Bill to contain statutory, enforceable targets with stipulated time scales. Indeed, we were led to believe that that is what the Minister wanted. After all, it was the Minister who tabled a new clause that said:
	"Every energy conservation authority shall take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to implement the measures set out in any energy conservation report prepared by the authority."
	In speaking to that amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
	"There is a good reason for tabling such an amendment. The original Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 did not contain targets. In setting targets, we need to take into account the fact that the performance of local authorities across the country varies enormously."
	I agree. Some have announced that they have achieved a 15 per cent. reduction, but others have improved energy conservation by only 0.003 per cent. Others have not even bothered to report at all, so the Minister was right.
	The right hon. Gentleman also said that the amendment
	"represents a considerable step forward from the current HECA requirements. As hon. Members will know, the 1995 Act places a duty on authorities only to prepare energy conservation reports and then report progress. It does not provide a clear legal duty to implement any measures in their reports, which means, paradoxically, that they can make virtually no improvements yet still comply with the legislation. That is clearly nonsense and the amendment is designed to put that right."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 February 2002; c. 25-26.]
	Those were the Minister's words. He inserted that provision because he thought that without it, the Bill was clearly nonsense. The fact is that he is now stripping out that provision by this amendment.
	I could go on: I could give many other examples of occasions when the Minister demanded that targets be used. He talks about targets being the "linchpin of the Bill". He said:
	"I would much prefer to set a target and just fail to reach it, yet make a serious attempt, than to avoid setting a target and produce a wet and feeble response."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 January 2002; c. 18.]
	There were many other occasions on which the Minister assured us that targets were fundamental and deeply important. Yet, under the Bill, they will be meaningless unless amendment (a) is accepted.
	Why has the Minister changed his mind? I am not sure that he has. I think that his environmental heart is in the right place. I think that he has, however, been overruled by his civil servants and by the Minister for Local Government. So the Minister may huff and puff about the environment, but, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, other Departments always seem to blow him down. The Minister has become an environmental fig leaf for the Government because, by their actions, they have shown that they do not give a fig for the environment.
	Finally, I should like to read out a letter sent to the Minister on 4 February 2002 by HECA Partnership for 30 Per Cent. It says:
	"Dear Michael . . . We are writing to you as the organisations that form this Partnership to promote the achievement of HECA targets. This is an aim that we all believe you subscribe to—indeed we were heartened to note your comments to Nigel Griffiths MP last September that although local authorities performance under HECA was 'wholly inadequate' you were interested not simply in condemnation but also in seeing that targets were made 'more robust' and also, importantly, in giving local authorities the tools with which to deliver them.
	This is a view we share—and it is for this reason that we support the Home Energy Conservation Bill, which makes the targets a duty rather than a discretion . . . Your amendments remove all of these provisions. We are deeply saddened by them—all the more so because we know you to be a friend and an ally."
	That letter was signed by Andrew Warren, the director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, William Gillis, the director of National Energy Action, Charles Secrett, the director of Friends of the Earth, Michael King, the chairman of the National Right to Fuel Campaign, Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs for Help the Aged, Andrew Cooper, the UK HECA forum representative, Baroness Maddock, the promoter of HECA 1995, Dick Barry of Unison, Stephen Hale of the Socialist Environmental Resources Association, Penny Kemp, the chair of the executive of the Green party, Duncan Borrowman of the Green Liberal Democrats and Nick Wood-Dow, chairman of the Tory Green Initiative.
	If these able and knowledgeable people were deeply saddened by what the Minister proposed then, they would be furious at what the Government are doing now. They would be right to be furious, because the Government are gutting the Bill.

Michael Meacher: I have not heard so much arrant nonsense for a long time—even from the hon. Gentleman. To suggest that the Government are gutting the Bill is not only parliamentary exaggeration; it is utterly ridiculous. The Government have got behind the Bill; we are putting in a statutory requirement for local authorities to meet a significant improvement in the HECA record on energy efficiency, and supplying the money—when it is available—to do so. That is the only responsible action for any Government and we are taking it.
	Under the Conservative Government, there was a complete dereliction of such action during 18 years. They did nothing of the kind, and fuel poverty increased. There is no point in Conservative Members shaking their heads—we all know their record.
	We heard some colourful language from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker), who described the Bill as wishy-washy, toothless and a waste of time. That is utter rubbish. For the purposes of his speech, the hon. Gentleman used language for which there is not the slightest justification. Anyone who has considered the Bill or who listened to my lengthy speech introducing amendment No. 11 will know that.
	The hon. Gentleman's point is that if amendment (a) is accepted, we would not be gutting the Bill; it would no longer be wishy-washy, toothless and a waste of time. What utter balderdash! There is no logic in that at all. The amendment would provide no statutory requirement whatever. In my opening remarks, I pointed out that the amendment was purely presentational—and it is.
	The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the Government are gutting the Bill and that the insertion of amendment (a) would change that. It would do nothing of the kind. We are not gutting the Bill. As a result of the Government's support, the Bill is substantive. There is no profound objection to the amendment but, for the reasons that I gave earlier, it is not appropriate. It certainly would not provide a statutory requirement; it would not add force to the Bill.
	I have listened to the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. No one—with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce)—has addressed the question of finance. There is no difference between us as to what we should like to do—we all want a substantial improvement on the gradual improvements that have been made under the HECA. However, the only certain way to secure that improvement is through statutory means, and that has to be funded. That is the central question. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle did not mention that.
	In opposition, it is easy to make great claims, to set fantasy objectives and to throw confetti goals around the Chamber and tell the Government that they are not going for them. Everyone knows that it is different in government. In government, the buck stops here. If we make a commitment, it has to be responsible and we must be able to justify it with the income stream necessary to deliver it. That is the difference. It is utterly irresponsible to come to the House and make grandiose and grandiloquent gestures without backing them up with the one thing that matters—the money to achieve them.

Gregory Barker: I am sorry to hear the Minister go on so intemperately. Is he aware of the newly published independent research carried out by the Association for the Conservation of Energy which shows that the cost would be £29 million, but that if the Government spent that amount it would be ratcheted up more than 10 times by other moneys from the private sector? Has the Minister actually seen that research? Has he spent any time examining it?

Michael Meacher: Of course I have seen it. I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I made my opening speech, but I referred to it at some length. I said two things about it. One was that that estimate is at the bottom end of the range of estimates that has been produced. It is, as the authors will recognise, a fairly rough and ready estimate for the second reason that I am about to come on to. The top figure of the range is £1 billion. It may well be that the real figure is towards the lower rather than the higher end—I suspect that it is—but if the accurate figure is of the order of £100 million to £200 million, which is perfectly plausible, the question is where that money will come from.
	My second point was this, and it is important. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) asked why the Government could not come up with a figure that they were sure about. The answer is, to use a phrase sometimes heard in universities, that the figure is a residual variable; it is the cost that will remain when all the other costed programmes have been carried through.
	Until we have seen the results of the home energy efficiency scheme over a period of 10 years and the effect of the energy efficiency commitment between 2002–05, which will probably be extended although the Government have yet to take that decision, and until we have seen the results of the upgrading of local authority stock, which obviously improves energy efficiency within those buildings, it is impossible to be clear, beyond a fairly wide margin of error, how much will still remain to be done to meet a given target of, say, 30 per cent. We cannot know for certain how much will remain undone, and to be done under the Bill. I certainly believe that the cost will be significant, but I cannot put a figure on it. However, whatever the figure, even if it is only £29 million—I believe it would be more than that—where will that money come from?
	The hon. Member for Gordon rightly drew attention to the fact that the Government can, under pressure, produce money rapidly when they have to. For example, in the event of unpredicted disasters, such as the outbreaks of BSE and foot and mouth, of course the Government must provide funding, but that is completely different from funding a desirable objective. All Departments and Ministers have their shopping list of desirables, but the Treasury and the Chancellor would rightly say that there must be firm prioritisation in terms of the Government's overall accounting.
	There is pressure from my Department to ensure that we have more money for energy efficiency, and that is why I am in no way foreclosing on the possibility that we can make some progress, possibly fairly quickly, although I do not know. We certainly want to. However, what I cannot do is tell the House today that I have the money in my back pocket so that I can, with assurance and certainty, back a Bill that will cost at least £29 million and possibly £100 million or £200 million. I simply cannot do that. I appeal to all hon. Members to recognise the constraints under which Ministers act.

Jim Cousins: If an aspirational target were included in the Bill, would that help or hinder the Minister in his arguments about funding?

Michael Meacher: To put an aspiration in the Bill does not alter the position one way or the other, as I have already said. An aspiration is not a statutory requirement. It could be construed as constraining the fixing of targets over the period. It is not a requirement; it merely sets the backdrop against which those targets might be measured and assessed. It does no more, but I suppose no less, than that.
	The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made the fair point that, if the Secretary of State were to do nothing, absolutely nothing would happen and there would be no advance under the Bill. In a technical, legal sense that is perfectly true. However, Governments do not responsibly commit themselves to such a Bill—as I have on behalf of this Government—and make it clear that they will move as soon as they have the money, but then completely neglect to do so. Governments do not do that, and we will not do that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made a fair and balanced speech, and I am grateful as always for the generous things he said about me. He raised the issue of new burdens, as if this is a new doctrine that has come down from the heavens and descended on Government and we are beholden to it. I do not think that it is all that new, although it has been sharpened under the Government. The view taken by previous Tory Governments was that they could place extra obligations on certain bodies, such as local authorities, but did not need to provide extra funds as the necessary measures would be funded by efficiency savings. There is some truth in that, but to continue to impose such obligations, as they did repeatedly, was nonsense, and was recognised as such. We have tried to correct that. Local authorities have pressed us to accept that if we want them to do something, they are prepared to do it but we must provide the funding. That is a perfectly fair doctrine.
	We could continue with the HECA as it is, under which improvements have been made. Some authorities have done extremely well, and have achieved improvements of up to 20 per cent. They have done so voluntarily, because they have made that their priority. I am sure that we will continue with that, and that there will be further improvements whatever the Government do and whether or not this Bill goes through.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred to authorities that have achieved only a 0.003 per cent. improvement. Some have not even produced a report; some have produced a report but have done nothing about it; and some have produced a report with a tiny target and that is all they have achieved. Those are the authorities that we should aim at, which is why we need a statutory requirement, and I fully accept that. If it is a statutory requirement, it is also an obligation, which is not currently the case. If we are to require local authorities to do something over and above what they are already doing, which is the purpose of the Bill, they must be funded. It is as simple as that.
	The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) asked whether we were letting 350 of the 360-odd local authorities off the hook. No, we are not. We are concerned about the large proportion of them—a quarter to a half—that have done miserably. But it is not just those that have hardly done anything or have not produced a report: we are concerned about laggard local authorities that are nowhere near the level of the best and are not performing adequately to achieve the target set by the Tory Government in their 1996 guidance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South unfairly drew attention to the quality of advice that I have received. He said that the drafting of amendment No. 11 was therefore very late. The reason that it was produced so late was that there was endless negotiation with the promoters of the Bill over changes. At least three times I thought that agreement had been reached, but then there were further discussions and more changes. It was only when the Bill came into play that instructions to parliamentary counsel were finally drawn up, and as a result amendment No. 11 was produced. I am sorry that it was late, but that was because of the constant pressures and demands for further changes to the Bill.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far in this small debate, the Minister has spoken for 58 minutes. We know that the Government do not like the Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill, but for the Minister to talk for so long is unfair to all those pensioners and others who are relying on that Bill making progress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is concerned purely with reaching another Bill. I will say nothing about its merits or otherwise. He is uninterested in this Bill and sees it as something he has to step over to get to his preferred alternative. That is contemptible. His Front-Bench colleagues have repeatedly told the House how incredibly important this Bill is and how the Government are failing to carry out important objectives. We now see the other face of the Tory party, which wants to get rid of the Bill and move on to the real business of the Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill. That is despicable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said that the advice I get is simply to minimise my commitments so that I will be held to the least account. That is not fair. My civil servants know extremely well that I am keen to advance the environmental agenda and, where necessary, to set targets and commitments. They know that perfectly well, and I believe that the advice I get is proper and balanced in order to enable me to reach the right conclusions, not to minimise my commitments.
	On funding, I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon. The money is being found to deal with child poverty, fuel poverty, climate change and the Kyoto targets precisely because they are Government targets that are part of our policy development process. They have been planned over years and years and written into spending reviews to meet policy programmes and objectives.
	The difference here, as I have tried to explain, is that this is a private Member's Bill—it is meritorious and worthy, and has entirely proper objectives—that is being inserted between spending reviews when there has been no planning for it within Government at all. It could be financed only by reducing other commitments—presumably in energy efficiency but maybe in other areas—by the same amount as the measure costs. That is not a proper or desirable way to legislate.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that the Bill is one of a series that have come to the House over many years with all-party support? All sides of the House are telling him that there is an overwhelming demand that the Government have that target. By accepting the Bill, they would have.

Michael Meacher: I accept the Bill; I make that clear. I am seeking support from across the House for putting it through today. What has emerged clearly today is that there is support from both sides of the House for a marked and substantial improvement in energy efficiency. I say to all Members that the way to achieve that is to support the Bill as it stands, so that what all Members want is achieved.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South–East (Dr. Iddon) asked if I was backing off the 30 per cent. target. The 30 per cent. figure was never a statutory target. It was set by the previous Government in the guidance that they gave to local authorities in terms of drawing up reports about how local authorities should improve energy efficiency in their areas. It has never been a statutory requirement. I am keen to have the highest targets that I can fund and that I can therefore justify. I repeat that I do not have the funding at this point to justify setting a target at 30 per cent. That does not mean that I would not like to reach it or that the Government do not want to achieve it, but I must have the funding before I can commit to a particular target.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire rightly said—I think we agree—that we want enforceable targets and time scales. However, all I would say to him, if he is responsible and if he aspires to government, is that it is also necessary to have the funding that will deliver the agreed objective—a statutory requirement in a certain time scale. He must accept that.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred, very generously, to my being overruled. That is absolutely not the case. I repeat: the problem is not other Ministers, who want the Bill as much as I do—there is no doubt that all Ministers want it, including those at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—but the funding, which he never speaks about and gratuitously avoided. It has nothing to do with being overruled.
	The hon. Gentleman also made generous comments about my being an environmental fig leaf. Well, this pretty good environmental fig leaf has produced the climate change programme, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the home energy efficiency scheme, the energy efficiency commitment and a commitment to end fuel poverty within 10 years. Those are enormously powerful objectives and if that is being a fig leaf, I am extremely happy so to be.
	On that basis, I commend amendment No. 11 and ask for support from across the House, as I believe that it is the heart of the Bill and that it will deliver exactly what all Members on both sides want.

Desmond Turner: On some Friday mornings, it is a pity that we cannot keep the Front Benchers quiet, because they cannot resist shooting at each other and that obscures what we are trying to achieve through a private Member's Bill.
	I fear that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) is wrong to suggest that amendment (a) would give the Bill teeth—it would do no such thing. I should know because, as he rightly said, he cribbed the words from an amendment that I did not pursue. He changed the PIU target of 20 per cent. between now and 2010 to the HECA target of 30 per cent. between 1996 and 2010. That is the only change.
	Hon. Members also pointed out that that is window dressing. They are absolutely right, and I should know that too, because I was responsible for it. The proposal was intended as window dressing—constructive window dressing, but window dressing none the less. It has no statutory meaning whatever. I have just taken advice from a learned Queen's counsel colleague, who confirms that that is the case. It is also the opinion of the independent parliamentary counsel who drew up the words.
	I appeal to all Members of all parties on both sides who want the Bill, and I say to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that accepting amendment No. 11 would constitute not a reversal, but a massive step forward. It is the means by which we shall reach the targets that we all want and achieve energy conservation and safety standards in houses in multiple occupation, which is a long-standing, treasured ambition of all in the House. It is the means by which we will make further inroads into fuel poverty. In all earnestness, I ask the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and his supporters not to press amendment (a) to amendment No. 11. If they do, I ask all hon. Members who really want what this Bill has got—and it has got a hell of a lot—not to vote for that amendment. If they do, they will be walking into a trap. That is my appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), in line 1, at beginning insert—
	'(A1) The appropriate Minister shall in exercising any functions under this section or under the principal Act, and in considering whether or not to exercise those functions, have as a principal aim the achievement of an improvement in energy efficiency in residential accommodation of at least 30 per cent. by the end of 2010, taking 1st January 1996 as the base line date.'.—[Mr. Barker.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 87, Noes 62.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendment No. 11, as amended, agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 12, in page 2, leave out lines 19 to 22.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 2
	 — 
	Guidance on eradication of fuel poverty

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 2, line 26, leave out Clause 2.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 3
	 — 
	Meaning of "house in multiple occupation"

Desmond Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 31, leave out from "provision;" to end of line 34 and insert—
	'(c) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
	(d) shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 4, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
	'(3) But a registration scheme must apply to every house in multiple occupation in the authority's district, which
	(a) consists of more than two storeys, for which purpose an attic or basement shall be considered a storey unless used solely for purposes other than accommodation, or
	(b) is occupied by more than four adults.'. In addition, I must advise the House that, following representations by the Member in charge of the Bill and the Members who have tabled the amendments, Mr. Speaker has agreed that the following starred amendments should also be taken with this group: No. 17, in clause 4, page 4, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
	'(6) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
	No. 18, in clause 5, page 5, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
	'(9) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
	No. 19, in clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
	'(1D) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Desmond Turner: It has always been our intention in dealing with the section of the Bill relating to houses in multiple occupation to be as transparent as possible. To that end, the Second Reading version of the Bill referred to regulations needing to be made by positive resolution. That was changed by Government amendments in Committee to resolution by annulment, which we felt did not give adequate opportunity for scrutiny, given that serious issues were involved. After all, I am sure that we have all sat on enough statutory instrument Committees and participated in attempts to break the four-minute meeting barrier to know that the normal method of resolution by annulment results in very little scrutiny indeed, whereas if it is done by positive resolution, it is open to inspection and proper scrutiny by the whole House.
	Given the weight of legislation that these regulations will cover, we felt that this proposal was fair to landlords, to tenants who live in houses in multiple occupation and to Parliament. I am happy to say that, when I asked in Committee whether the Government would consider implementing the regulations by positive resolution, the response was sympathetic. Indeed, amendment No. 9 already provides for the regulations concerning clause 3, which deals with the definition of houses in multiple occupation, to be dealt with by affirmative resolution.
	I had anticipated that there would be similar amendments to go with clauses 4, 5 and 6. Clause 4, in particular, concerns the level at which mandatory registration starts to bite. Amendment No. 4 replicates the words in our Second Reading draft defining the level at which, and above which, registration is mandatory—three or four more floors in occupation, and five or more tenants. That will now be subject to regulation rather than being dealt with in the Bill, but, along with many of my colleagues, I think that it should be subject to affirmative resolution, and open to scrutiny by the whole House.
	The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) has tabled starred amendments to replace amendments to clauses 4, 5 and 6 that I had expected to be tabled but which unfortunately were not. I do not think it was a conspiracy—I always prefer the cock-up to the conspiracy theory. It was just one of those things, probably due to a genuine error or misunderstanding. Mr. Speaker has graciously allowed the starred amendments to be discussed, and I am happy to support them—as, I expect, will many other Members. I understand that the Department is content to follow the will of the House.
	I urge the House to accept amendment No. 9, and amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19. I ask the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) not to press her amendments. I expect the issue to be taken up very firmly now that, hopefully, affirmative resolutions will apply to the regulations—and it is still my clear understanding that the level I have mentioned is the level at which mandatory registration starts to bite.

Sue Doughty: We pressed for the content of amendment No. 4 in Committee. We are very concerned about houses that are built vertically, and present a greater fire risk. However, we accept what we have been told about further consideration, and I intend to withdraw the amendment.

Sydney Chapman: Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are intended to rectify an accidental omission. Their wording is identical to some of the wording of amendment No. 9, which refers to clause 3. My amendments refer to clauses 4, 5 and 6.
	The regulations will affect the interests of thousands of landlords and tenants. We think they should be subject to affirmative resolution, so that the House will have a chance to debate key matters—as opposed to matters of detail, which should be subject to negative resolution.
	If I understand the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) correctly, I fully support his amendment, as he appears to be supporting mine.

Michael Meacher: Once again I am glad to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown.
	On amendment No. 9, the Government propose that regulations under clause 3 should be made by affirmative rather than by negative resolution. I shall deal later in my speech with the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) about regulations under clauses 4 to 6.
	The effect of the change proposed in amendment No. 9 will be that both Houses would need to debate and vote on regulations prescribing the following definitions: what an HMO is in terms of the type of properties covered or excluded; what an HMO is in terms of those who occupy it—the number of households or family or other relationships involved; what is meant by "occupy" and such other matters as may need to be prescribed.
	A power to make regulations is needed to define HMOs according to the types of properties to be included or excluded and the number of occupants and their relationships. We debated that extensively in Committee. The power in clause 3(3) is one of the means of ensuring consistency across registration schemes. At present there is not only uncertainty as to how the current definition based on households works, but—and we intend to address this—there is no flexibility in the law to ensure that adjustments can be made to achieve a legal definition that works. So in prescribing what an HMO is and what it is not, we need to define which types of property are judged to be HMOs and which are specifically excluded. The definition also has to have regard to those who occupy the properties. Definitions based on the concept of household and family relationships have been used in primary legislation, but they have not been without their critics. There is therefore a need for the flexibility in establishing definitions that secondary legislation provides.
	A power such as that in clause 3 for the Secretary of State to say which HMOs must be included in any registration scheme is crucial to the operation of the registration scheme. It is not unreasonable that after public consultation on what is proposed by way of regulation Parliament should have its say.
	Following representations in Committee, where there were extensive discussions, the Government decided to table an amendment that would make regulations under clause 3 subject to affirmative resolution. However it is not intended that regulations under clauses 4, 5 and 6 should be subject to affirmative resolution and, in answer to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I shall make clear why.
	Affirmative resolution procedure is rarely used. It is a special provision for a special case. The regulations to be made under section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 are of fundamental importance because they determine the scope of the legislation in order to avoid undue complexity. They allow a substantial amount of discretion to the Secretary of State in determining what an HMO is as well as in conferring exemptions. In our view, other regulation-making powers in part 3 of the Bill are not comparable as they relate to matters which are not subject to any such procedure in the current legislation. For instance, the drawing of the line between properties that can be made subject to registration—with and without confirmation by the Secretary of State—is not, under section 346B of the 1985 Act, currently a matter for parliamentary scrutiny in any form. In fact, the Bill extends the scope of parliamentary scrutiny by making the drawing of that line subject to the negative resolution procedure. Regulations will be put before both Houses, and if prayed against, a debate can take place.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) is satisfied with that explanation. The Government have to strike a balance between the correct use of parliamentary time, and ensuring adequate and proper parliamentary accountability. The Government are concerned that an undue amount of parliamentary time should not be expended debating highly detailed regulations that prescribe the regime for the registration of HMOs. The amendments would bring within parliamentary scrutiny matters not currently considered by Parliament. The negative resolution procedure allows regulations to be prayed against by the Opposition or by any hon. Member, and then debated, and we believe that to be adequate.
	Following representations made in Committee, the Government have decided to propose in new clause 2, which we have already debated, that regulations under clause 3 be subject to affirmative resolution. We do not believe that a good case exists for regulations under clauses 4, 5 and 6 being so subject, but as was rightly pointed out, I am prepared to listen to the view of the House on this matter, and to other representations. It is a question not of defeating the Government, but of Parliament deciding in a mature and sensible way how much detail it wants to go into in insisting that a parliamentary debate take place.
	On amendment No. 4, the Government are most concerned about HMOs that constitute a clear risk to the health and safety of their occupants. As I said in Committee, properties with three or more storeys, and which are occupied by more than four adults, present the greatest risks, particularly in terms of fire and overcrowding. Past Government-commissioned research found that multiple occupancy of two-storey properties involved no greater risk of fire than did occupancy by a single family. As I also said in Committee, the Government intend that local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that the most vulnerable HMOs in their district meet basic health, safety and management standards. We will prescribe those HMOs to which that duty will apply, but we also intend that local authorities will have discretionary powers to register HMOs in their district that do not fall within the scope of this mandatory scheme.
	The matter was raised in Committee and debated thoroughly, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—he is not here today—withdrew his amendment. If accepted, it would have had the same effect as Government amendment No. 9, which is why we are debating that amendment today. The English house condition survey and the Entec report, commissioned in 1998, clearly showed that houses occupied by more than four people, and which consist of three or more storeys, are at greatest risk from poor standards, overcrowding and fire. Smaller, two-storey houses in multiple occupation tend not to be in any worse a condition than those in single occupation. We intend to allow local authorities to extend registration to smaller HMOs if they see fit, but we do not believe that a pressing need exists for mandatory registration of such properties. For those reasons, I hope that the House will reject the relevant amendments.

Jonathan Sayeed: I intend to be brief, because the next Bill is the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire). I am anxious to make progress on that valuable Bill, so I shall write to the Minister on some of the points that I had intended to raise on the operation of HMOs and the effect on private landlords.
	We need the positive resolution procedure for the powers in clauses 4, 5 and 6, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) proposed. I hope that, given all the voices that have supported that aim, the Minister will eventually feel able also to support it. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that he does not intend to press the matter to a Division, so that we can make progress.

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend the Minister has his approach to affirmative and negative resolutions back to front. I object to his view of the need for affirmative resolution in relation to clause 3, but not for clause 5. The meat of the Bill is not so much the definition of HMOs but the registration scheme that will police them. It is bizarre that, if my right hon. Friend gets his way, we will have an affirmative resolution to define an HMO, but not to define what should be in the scheme. In the end, the scheme could include far less than the definition. He is trying to have his cake and eat it.
	A better approach would be to look at the issue the other way round. Indeed, I feel so strongly about that that I shall seek to divide the House on the point. My right hon. Friend said that the affirmative procedure is rarely used and should be used only in special cases. In this case, the special case is not the definition of an HMO but the scheme of registration, because the whole policing of the Bill will revolve around that. It is much more important to get that right than to get the global definition right. The definition in the registration scheme may be more restrictive than the overall definition under clause 3.
	I shall illustrate my argument with reference to amendment No. 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, although I understand that they will not press that amendment. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke on amendment No. 9, he said that the regulations would follow the lines set out in amendment No.4, which causes me some concern. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was a personal injury lawyer. I suppose that I still am, in that I have a practice certificate, although I am not taking any cases. For some 17 years, I was the solicitor for the Fire Brigades Union and I came across many cases involving HMOs. I am concerned that the definition proposed in amendment No. 4 is too restrictive and easily avoidable by unscrupulous landlords.
	Amendment No. 4 gives a definition of an HMO that includes the words:
	"unless used solely for purposes other than accommodation".
	I fear that that phrase means that when an unscrupulous landlord knows that the local authority inspector is coming round, he can easily take the bed out and put a load of old furniture into the basement or loft. After the inspector goes, the furniture is brought back and the bed comes out again. Indeed, there might even be a folding bed that goes into a wardrobe and is therefore disguised.
	I am also concerned about the reference to four adults in amendment No. 4. A small house with more than one storey—or more than the two storeys referred to in the amendment—could have three bedsits. If there are four adults or two couples in a house, that is fair enough, but what happens when the adults live separately in bedsits, often in extremely poor accommodation? That is why we need to consider the whole issue of HMOs and not just in the context of home energy conservation.

Stephen McCabe: Is the essence of my hon. Friend's argument that unless the point is clearly defined by the Secretary of State, it will be left to the discretion of local authorities and, although they will appear to be constrained by a property having two storeys, including a basement or an attic, there will be no provision for other types of accommodation? There was a recent example in Birmingham—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is embarking on a speech rather than making an intervention. [Interruption.] Order.

Andrew Dismore: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I disagree with him and hope to explain why later in my remarks. It is important to preserve the discretion of local authorities, yet within an overall framework. There needs to be a degree of regulation of houses in multiple occupation, but I suspect that a Bill such as this is not the best way of protecting people living in HMOs. It is in that context that I make my remarks.
	Amendment No. 4, which I understand will not be pressed to a vote, is far too restrictive. Effectively, no other registration scheme would be permissible. I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed, because it is important for the Secretary of State to have the discretion to describe properties in regulations.
	On the affirmative and negative resolution procedure, I take exception again to amendment No. 17. I am concerned that if we become too prescriptive, perhaps through the affirmative resolution procedure, we could end up removing the discretion of local authorities to make provision for the housing in their area. I imagine that the sort of scenario that I have described would be of no concern in certain areas of the country but of great concern in others. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept that regulations must be as flexible as possible to allow local authorities to have discretion to meet the circumstances in their area.
	Of course, in some local authorities, the question of HMOs does not arise because there are very few, and those that exist are luxury accommodation. However, in parts of the inner city and, indeed, in parts of my constituency, HMOs are important in providing accommodation. Because of the large amount of work they create, they are a headache for the various enforcement authorities—the fire service, local authorities and anyone to do with the administration of housing welfare rights.
	I am afraid that I am not with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on amendment No. 17. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be far more suitable for that proposal to be dealt with through the negative resolution procedure.
	However, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right about clause 5 and that my right hon. Friend is wrong. The meat of the measure is in the registration scheme that will be administered by local authorities. Clause 5 deals with model schemes and their confirmation. It is important that those schemes be properly debated because they will form the template from which local authorities will work.
	The local authorities will have to start from somewhere, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the debate should be not about trying to take away their discretion but about setting an acceptable framework that has been properly considered by Parliament. The same point applies to the confirmation of the schemes. I think that he may have his affirmatives and negatives the wrong way round.
	I agree in part with the proposals of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—50 per cent., but 50 per cent. opposition. We should not invoke the affirmative resolution procedure for clauses 3 and 4, but there is a case for it on clause 5. That would achieve the best balance by ensuring that the basic template for local authorities is fully debated and discussed in the House, while allowing local authorities to make their own schemes without too much interference from this place. I am a great believer in allowing local authorities to get on with the job and I am concerned that the Government's approach would prevent that.

Sydney Chapman: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find myself in some difficulty. I genuinely did not intend to open up a disagreement between Government Front and Back Benchers, but I am persuaded by the Minister's comments. The telling point is that the issues raised by my amendments could be debated by the House on a negative resolution, so I shall not press them to a vote.
	Amendment No. 18 apparently meets with the approbation of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He is my near neighbour and I want to live in comfort with him, so I shall leave that spat between him and the Minister. I shall not press amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19.

Michael Meacher: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the interesting points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He makes a strong argument for further consideration and it is unfortunate that there is not more time to go into the question of the registration of HMOs under part 3. Perhaps we shall be able to do so at a later stage.
	Amendment No. 4 raises the issue of whether registration should apply to two or three-storey buildings with at least four occupants. Much depends on the condition of the buildings and the risks involved. As I said earlier, the English house condition survey revealed that 20 per cent. of bedsit and self-contained, flat-type HMOs failed to meet minimum standards of fitness for human habitation. Those standards require that the property should be structurally sound, free from disrepair and damp, have adequate heating, lighting and ventilation, and have satisfactory cooking, washing and toilet facilities.
	Many properties failed to meet the test because they were in disrepair or lacked satisfactory heating. Those basic standards apply to all dwellings and the Government consider it unacceptable that a large proportion of the private rented sector does not even meet the minimum requirements.
	Additional risks to health and safety arise from the multiple occupation of properties. One of them is, obviously, the risk from fire. The survey revealed that a staggering and worrying 80 per cent. of houses occupied as bedsits lacked adequate means of escape from fire and other fire precautions.
	Following that survey, the Department commissioned Entec Ltd. to research the risk from fire in HMOs. That is relevant to the thrust of amendment No. 4 and whether registration should apply to two-storey buildings, or indeed one-storey buildings. That report was published in 1998 and it identified several factors which influenced the risk from fire in such properties. Those included the number of occupants of the building, as I have already said, and the number of storeys—HMOs of three or more pose a significantly higher risk, as do properties housing dependent and vulnerable people.
	The internal design and layout of HMOs can also significantly increase the risk, such as the degree of self-containment, the units of accommodation and the number of escapes and their precise location. The quality of management standards was also found to be an important factor in determining the significance of the risk.
	The Government took into account the Entec survey and the earlier 1998 survey in deciding their response to amendment No. 4.

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend is going into considerable detail about the sort of buildings concerned. Is he suggesting that that level of detail is appropriate for the affirmative resolution procedure?

Michael Meacher: The affirmative resolution procedure is another matter. I was addressing my remarks to amendment No. 4, which concerns whether registration should apply only to three and four-storey buildings that have at least four occupants or to two-storey buildings that have at least four occupants. There is no authoritative way of deciding that, except by looking at the design of HMOs, their distribution, the number of particular kinds and the number of occupants—the information that we have according to the number of storeys. I am sorry if I gave the impression of going into a lot of detail, but that is why I did so.
	The risk of death or injury from fire varies significantly, as all the factors interact differently in each case. However, Entec concluded that in several types of HMOs, the risk of death or injury from fire was significantly higher than in houses of single occupation, which is probably hardly surprising. It found, for example, that an occupant in a house comprised of bedsits was six times more likely to die as a result of fire than adults living in an ordinary house. That raises the question dealt with by amendment No. 4 as to whether registration should also apply to two-storey buildings, which may well contain a number of bedsits.
	I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that state of affairs is not simply unacceptable but a matter of great concern. However, other problems are associated with multi-occupation. Often those properties are overcrowded because they have inadequate facilities to meet the health and welfare of their occupants, and it is not uncommon in shared houses and bedsit-type HMOs to find up to 10 people sharing one bath, one WC and one kitchen.
	The English house condition survey revealed that more than 40 per cent. of houses occupied as bedsits had inadequate facilities for the occupants. It referred to a lack of adequate cooking, bathing and toilet facilities.
	Overcrowding is a major problem in some HMOs. Rooms often do not meet minimum space standards for human habitation, and in areas of high demand for housing it is not uncommon for three or more people to live, cook and sleep in a single room. I agree that we should take firm action to ensure that people are properly protected, and that the registration system is adequate for the purpose.

Stephen McCabe: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive my ignorance, but could he explain to me what would happen in the case of single-storey extensions where there is multiple occupation? I am thinking of a garage that has been extended and used for accommodation.

Michael Meacher: That is the type of problem that I mean. Unfortunately, HMOs are extremely varied. There are variations in the number of storeys, the number of occupants and the design. My hon. Friend gave one example. How can we ensure adequate protection for people who live, eat and sleep in buildings such as he referred to through the registration of HMOs? My concern is about whether amendment No. 4 will be adequate for that purpose.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) have raised the important issue of enforcement. Many HMOs have transient populations, and they may be licensed for a certain level of occupation, but as soon as the local authority officer has granted a licence, the previous over-occupancy persists. How will these regulations, excellent though they are, be enforced?

Michael Meacher: I am pleased to respond to that important point, because that is what part 3 and these amendments are about. The hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was eloquent on this issue. He made it perfectly clear that he was speaking on behalf of landlords. Of course, their interests must be properly reflected.
	I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the first and prime requirement must be the health and safety of occupants, and the regulations must be effectively enforceable. There is no simple answer to his question about how to deal with a transient population, and ensure that people who are there one day and leave a few nights later are adequately protected. We can only ensure that the building that they occupy falls within the registration system, and that it is regulated by the local authority, so that even if there is a transient population, any persons who occupy that building or those rooms are properly protected from fire, overcrowding and any other risks.
	We believe that the pressing need for the better regulation of HMOs will be achieved by the mandatory licensing of such properties. We are committed to introducing such a scheme as soon as parliamentary time is available to produce legislation to achieve that. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), made it clear that the Government had in mind a much wider Bill along those lines, and that they regarded part 3 of this Bill as a useful paving measure that would lead the way towards a much more detailed licensing system for landlords and for the better registration of HMOs. We believe that the existing powers available to local authorities to register HMOs, and in what circumstance, need to be amended. There is a pressing need to review the definition of HMOs, which is what the Bill will achieve.
	Local authorities already have a wide range of powers available to them to tackle and control standards of HMOs—the exact point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold—through part 11 of the Housing Act 1985 and the regulations made under it. However—the hon. Gentleman was quite right to raise this point—experience has shown that these powers have not always been fully effective in ensuring that acceptable standards are met or maintained. Much of that is because the legislation dates back many years and reflects the conditions and technology prevailing at the time. Many of the buildings go back to Victorian times.
	The legislation sets detailed and prescriptive requirements, but fails to provide the flexibility required to deal with other problems because building design and technologies have changed dramatically over the past 50 or 100 years. That has inevitably hampered local authorities in performing their duties under the legislation.
	I accept that the Bill is not the correct vehicle for addressing these defects. The Government regard this as a useful paving measure for a much more dedicated and targeted measure that the DTLR intends to introduce. Obviously that will require a much more complex and detailed set of measures than can be accommodated in a private Member's Bill, and it can be covered by Government legislation. However, it is important that we get the Bill right, and that it is consistent with the Government's wider intentions along these lines.

Jonathan Sayeed: So far, the Minister has spoken for 109 minutes during this debate. The only particular change taking place is the introduction of amendment (a) to amendment No. 11, which the Minister described as window dressing. Is it the Minister's intention to talk out this Bill because of what he described as only a piece of window dressing?

Michael Meacher: That is a bit ripe coming from the hon. Gentleman, who indicated that, having succeeded in the vote, he wanted to be rid of this Bill and move on to others. He was dissimilating enough to suggest that the reason for wishing to dismiss the Bill was to provide time for my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), whereas it is clear from the intervention of the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), that the Opposition's intention is to dismiss this Bill in order to have as much time as possible on the Pension Annuities (Amendment) Bill.
	My concern is to ensure that the Bill is properly debated. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, contrary to his Back-Bench colleagues, does not seem to regard the registration of houses of multiple occupation and the risks to many vulnerable and defenceless people in them to be a matter for careful consideration. If he had applied himself to this matter and asked some serious questions, it would be another matter. He has just sat there twiddling his thumbs, waiting to get on to the next Bill. That is not a worthy way to present himself.

Stephen McCabe: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister gives way to his hon. Friend, I ask him to concentrate on responding to the debate, rather than covering wider ground.

Stephen McCabe: I urge my hon. Friend not to stop debating the Bill and not to submit to the pressure. I want to know why he thinks that the affirmative resolution is necessary, particularly in relation to clause 3.

Michael Meacher: On clause 3, I said that proposing the affirmative resolution procedure, which is used only rarely, is justified on a matter of sufficient importance, but not on one of a detailed or technical kind. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, but perhaps it is the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) who has his affirmatives and negatives the wrong way round. I think that he is partly right and partly wrong.
	It is justified for clause 3, which raises the more general and serious issues, to be subject to the affirmative procedure, but it is reasonable to discuss to what parliamentary scrutiny the more detailed and technical issues under clauses 4 to 6 should be subject. Currently, they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny at all, so proposing the negative resolution procedure gives the Opposition or any Member of the House, the opportunity for a debate. That is a fair balance between the two.

Andrew Dismore: rose—

Michael Meacher: Does my hon. Friend disagree?

Andrew Dismore: I am concerned, because the registration scheme ultimately polices the Bill. People could face sanctions if they do not comply with it properly. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Turner) but that issue is far more important than the vague and woolly general definitions in clause 3. We must have proper scrutiny, as people may face penalties.

Michael Meacher: I am not disagreeing about the importance of the penalties and sanctions that may rightly be brought to bear when landlords fail to meet standards. The issue is whether the matter should take up parliamentary time, because detailed scrutiny in both Houses would be required. Is that merited? I am suggesting not that there should not be adequate penalties, but that if there is a desire to discuss these matters, the House should have the opportunity to make such a demand. However, to lay that down as a requirement seems to us to go further than is strictly necessary. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that, although I take his point. I am prepared, without prejudice, to have another look at the matter.

Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend has alluded to section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 and to the powers of local authorities under that Act in relation to HMOs. He also alluded to the inadequacy of those powers. Will he recount for the House why the powers need to be superseded and why clauses 3 and 4 may be inadequate for that, thereby requiring further wide-scale legislation?

Michael Meacher: The answer is that section 11 does not adequately deal with several issues relating to the registration and control of HMOs. For years if not decades, that has not been properly regulated. Obviously, there are powers under previous legislation that enable local authorities to go so far, but we believe that a major legislative overhaul is required. The Government propose to introduce such legislation, but that has been pre-empted—if that is the right word—by the Bill.
	After discussions with the Bill's supporters, we made an agreement on part 3 that we believe to be consistent with our wider purposes, and we are happy for it to proceed on that basis. However, section 11 is an inadequate instrument for what is a very complex and difficult area.
	The Bill would make one important change in respect of standards by amending section 348 of the 1985 Act so that a condition of the registration of a house will be that it meets minimum prescribed standards, including those relating to safety, energy efficiency and standards of fixtures, fittings and furnishings. If a house does not meet those standards, a local authority will be able to refuse to register it, unless steps are taken to require it to meet those standards. Therefore, the measure gives substantial powers to local authorities.
	Another difficulty with the current legislation is that the control regime is based largely on local authority discretionary powers, a matter that is raised in regard to amendment No. 4. The existing power to require HMOs to be registered is discretionary, as is the power on the categories of HMOs to which a registration scheme will apply.
	As a result, enforcement and the standards applied vary significantly across the country, a point to which the hon. Member for Cotswold rightly drew our attention. The Bill will deal with those anomalies by requiring all local authorities in England and Wales to adopt a registration scheme with control provisions for those HMOs most at risk.
	The Bill provides that regulations will prescribe which HMOs will be covered by the mandatory registration scheme. Should we include two-storey buildings, or should we restrict the provision to three and four-storey buildings which have at least four occupants? We will informally consult on which descriptions of HMOs will be subject to mandatory legislation, but as I indicated in Committee, HMOs that are of three or more storeys and that are occupied by more than four people exhibit the characteristics with which we are most concerned, such as fire risk and overcrowding. That is the basis for amendment No. 4. That is where the greatest risk applies. The question for the House is whether it applies to two-storey buildings with four people, or whether it is possible to draw a sensible dividing line between two and three storeys.
	The Bill provides that local authorities will, at their discretion, be able to register smaller HMOs if they consider that necessary. Therefore, whatever the House may decide today, there would still be a discretion where a local authority believed that a two-storey building should be brought within the controls.
	The Bill also provides that local authorities must adopt model and therefore uniform registration schemes in their districts. Again, that is important. If an authority wishes to vary the model scheme, it will only be able to do so with the approval of the Secretary of State. We believe that the use of model schemes will provide consistency across local authorities, which again is important. We do not think that there should be varying standards when one is talking about health and safety and overcrowding. That should apply in both the application of standards and their enforcement. We want to see even, balanced and proper enforcement across the country.
	The measure will also reduce the amount of paperwork and ensure that fees are kept to a minimum. That is a less important issue but not a negligible one.
	The existing definition of an HMO has been the subject of many debates; we had many in Committee. A number of grey areas have arisen. That has resulted in some properties that exhibit the characteristics of HMO accommodation not being within the definition. Precisely such a building configuration has been referred to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is again straying rather wide of the amendments before the House. I would be grateful if he returned to them.

Michael Meacher: I understand that point. I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the significance of the issue behind amendment No. 4 was understood. With your patience and kindness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have managed to spell it out in full. I am glad to leave the case there.

Barry Gardiner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have covered the amendment very fully and the Minister has responded to the debate at great length, so I do not think that it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to speak at this time.

Desmond Turner: The Minister outlined many of the reasons why use of the affirmative resolution procedure, as set out in the amendment, is so important. It is also extremely important to adopt starred amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19, to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) spoke, to provide for positive resolutions in respect of the issues covered in clauses 4, 5 and 6.
	We all know that houses in multiple occupation are an extremely complex matter. The question of definition alone has kept lawyers fat for years. It is important to have a definition that is not only foolproof as far as lawyers are concerned, but fair to landlords and tenants, so that everybody understands where they are. The question now boils down to what constitutes a household; it has changed since Second Reading, when, as hon. Members will remember, it was based on there being more than two families. Households are the basis of the current definition.
	We all know that problems have arisen in the courts because of unscrupulous landlords who are prepared to claim that a disparate group of people who have no mutual relationship whatever constitutes a single household. Thus, they will pretend that a four-storey Victorian tenement occupied by 12 students is a single household. Of course, that is blatant nonsense, but that is how the matter currently stands in the courts, which is unacceptable from everybody's point of view.
	It is essential to ensure proper scrutiny of associated regulations. I pointed out to the Department the weakness on definition and said, "You'll have to define households, or you'll be back in the mire again." It must prescribe the relationships that constitute a household. As we all know, that is potentially a very sensitive issue. In relation to a married couple with children, the circumstances are clear, but the relationships of unmarried couples, same-sex couples and so on in cohabitation might be less so. Those matters need to be considered very carefully. They are potentially very sensitive.

Barry Gardiner: I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board a point that I had hoped to make at greater length about an issue that is important in constituencies such as mine. In relation to an extended family nexus of asylum seekers, disproportionate work would be required of local authorities under the proposals for registration of households. Difficulties can arise when there is a tremendous influx of asylum seekers who are included in loose family configurations and often live in multiple occupation households. The turnover and mobility of such families can be so tremendously fast that a local authority would require far greater resources than are currently available to keep pace with the situation. Will my hon. Friend comment on that issue, although I am forbidden to do so at greater length?

Desmond Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which emphasises the problem of the definition of an extended family and where to set its limits. It is only right and proper that such sensitive issues are scrutinised by the House.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) made an important point about minority communities. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) envisage that resolutions, whether affirmative or negative, would include, for example, a requirement on local authorities to ensure that the regulations are published in languages other than English so that minority communities can understand them?

Desmond Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which underlines a point that is likely to be overlooked in an ordinary statutory instrument Committee, operating by resolution through annulment. Nine times out of 10, such Committees are trying to break the four-minute meeting record. Instead of scrutinising, Committee members assume that officials have done it all. We are considering a range of issues that are too sensitive to be left to officials to bring to a Committee that will simply rubber-stamp them so that its members can get out of the Room as quickly as possible.
	We have talked about problems that are associated with definition. They could keep lawyers going for a long time, but I do not want to dwell on that. However, definition is vital; my hon. Friends' interventions have shown that admirably.

Stephen McCabe: I want to make the same point, but with specific reference to clause 3(4). I am worried about the way in which the regulations will operate. I am conscious that they may involve safety issues for local authority officers. There must be massive scope for misunderstanding, especially in the case of asylum seekers, who may be subject to pressure from unscrupulous landlords. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has given any thought to ensuring that local authority officers are safeguarded and that accurate, reliable information on which the law can operate is uncovered.

Desmond Turner: That underlines the need for positive resolution so that we have clear regulations that protect the interests of everyone involved—landlords, tenants or local authority officers, who must enforce them.
	We have shown the potential sensitivity and complexity of definition. The Government have agreed that relationships will be prescribed by positive resolution. Many of the same considerations about relationships apply to the other three major HMO clauses—4, 5 and 6. Genuine questions could be asked about the registration level, which is controversial. There is fairly wide agreement in the House that three storeys or more and five or more tenants constitute a reasonable level at which to start mandatory registration.

Crispin Blunt: I am the promoter of a Bill that is lower down on the list. Why is the hon. Gentleman damaging the prospects for his Bill's progress by continuing to speak now?

Hon. Members: He is talking it out.

Desmond Turner: On the contrary; that is not my intention.
	I was considering the apparently reasonable definition about which many hon. Members agree. However, some hon. Members want the minimum number of tenants to be reduced. Student organisations are concerned about the condition of many student houses, which do not necessarily have three storeys, and which often consist of only four tenants—a two-storey family house might be let to students, for example. Those organisations want such houses to be covered by the Bill.
	There is a considerable level of complexity involved in dealing with these regulations, and it needs the full and open scrutiny of Parliament. I therefore strongly support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Chipping Campden—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Chipping Barnet. Chipping Campden is in my constituency.

Desmond Turner: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Have I got it wrong? I often do. I hope that the House will forgive me. The hon. Gentleman knows who I mean.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred to the fact that the regulations would be accompanied by penalties. There will be criminal offences associated with this legislation for landlords and others who commit major transgressions of the regulations. Although we are not necessarily going to bang people up for doing wrong under the regulations, they may be subject to a considerable fine. We therefore need to be very clear about what measures they are being required to conform to, and that those measures are reasonable. The positive resolution procedure in the House is a transparent and fair way of achieving that.

Stephen McCabe: My hon. Friend has just told the House that there will be penalties for landlords "and others" who transgress. Which others would be subject to penalties, and what kind of penalties would they be?

Desmond Turner: That is slightly speculative. Clear responsibilities will be placed not only on landlords but on tenants. We all know that antisocial behaviour occurs mainly in rented accommodation but, I regret, sometimes in owner-occupied accommodation as well. That is a fact of life. We have all, unless we live in very plush suburban lands, experienced cases of it in our constituencies, and they are extremely hard to deal with.

Barry Gardiner: Freeholders are often at arm's length in these situations, as they employ managing agents to manage the property on their behalf. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the penalties to which he has referred would apply also to the managers who have hands-on responsibility for the administration of the building and for the people living in it?

Desmond Turner: My hon. Friend's point is absolutely correct.

Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Desmond Turner: I will give way again in a moment.
	If my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) had been privy to the original Bill that we drafted, which set out to replace de novo section 11 of the Housing Act 1985, and which covered all these points of detail, he would know that this was a real issue that had to be addressed. It is an issue that the control provisions to be laid under regulations under the Bill will have to address. This emphasises the need for clear, transparent scrutiny.

Andrew Robathan: This is a Bill which I support, and which the hon. Gentleman has promoted. Will he explain why he is talking it out? Why is he talking out his own Bill?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Desmond Turner: I am not talking out my Bill. [Interruption.] I am trying to preserve it, contrary to the impression that the hon. Gentleman may have. Had there not been what can only be described as a wrecking amendment from his side of the Chamber, this Bill would now have been passed and we could have started discussing the Bill that all the Conservative Members are interested in. If Conservative Members want to know—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 June.

Remaining Private Members' Bills
	 — 
	COPYRIGHT (VISUALLY IMPAIRED PERSONS) BILL

Order read for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Friday 21 June

PENSIONS ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 April], proposed on further consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate further adjourned till Friday 19 July

RELATIONSHIPS (CIVIL REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

HEALTH (AIR TRAVELLERS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25 January].

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate further adjourned till Friday 19 July

ROAD SAFETY AND SPEED BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

TRESPASSERS ON LAND (LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE AND EVICTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take points of order afterwards.

RIGHT TO SELF-EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND REMEDIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

PATIENTS WITHOUT LEGAL CAPACITY (SAFEGUARDS) BILL

Order read for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June

COMPULSORY VOTING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June

PATENTS ACT 1977 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June

AGE DISCRIMINATION (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for the record to show that it was the Government Whips who objected to my Bill? I happen to know that the Bill has cross-party support, and it is a great pity that the issues with which it deals cannot be debated in Committee following its Second Reading. Do the procedures of the House allow it to be made plain that it was the Government Whips who prevented further progress?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The simple fact is that an objection to the Bill was made, and that is not a matter for the Chair.

Point of Order

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may or may not be aware of breaking news that there has been a serious rail crash just outside London in Hertfordshire. It appears that there may have been serious injuries and I am sure that the House would wish to express its sympathies with the victims and their families and the hope that the crash is not as serious as is being indicated on the wires.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If matters are as the hon. Gentleman says they are, it is a matter of seriousness and sadness for the whole House. All I can say at the moment is that we hope that things are not too bad.

DRUG RAPE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Vera Baird: It was a few days before Christmas in a local pub that Natalie aged 21 first set eyes on the man who probably raped her. She will never know for sure. She said:
	"I was out with a friend . . . We'd noticed this man in a couple of pubs and later he showed up in the club. He kept offering us drinks and I said no."
	When a friend gave her a vodka and coke, Natalie drank it without suspicion. Only afterwards did she learn that the drink had come from the persistent stranger. Twenty minutes later she was unconscious:
	"At first it felt like I was drunk, even though I hadn't had much alcohol. I couldn't find my friends, and went outside to look for them. It was freaky. Everything was distorted. The traffic was really loud and I felt as if everyone was shouting at me. Then I remember feeling my legs go and someone was taking my arm and started walking me saying that everything would be OK. I was grateful . . . The next thing I remember I was in a filthy bedsit with the man lying on top of me. I couldn't move. Everything was unreal. Later I woke again. I had my hair pinned up . . . my head banged against the headboard and the pin pierced my skin. The pain shot through me and this gave me a surge of power."
	This enabled her to push him off, pick up her clothes and flee. She felt violated, confused and uncertain, unable to remember his face, where she had been and what had happened during those lost hours. She wondered whether the attack had really taken place.
	"You think you've been raped; you know something has happened to you, but you don't quite remember."
	Pat, a 49-year-old secretary, comes from much nearer my constituency of Redcar. She does not remember being raped. The drug that had been used to spike her drink eventually caused her to black out. It was only the following morning when she woke up in her underwear with bruises round her waist and thighs that she realised that something terrible had happened. She believed that her boyfriend spiked her drink at the firm's Christmas party and with her boss took her upstairs and raped her.
	"There are about two hours I just can't account for."
	She said:
	"The room went very dark. I had the most horrendous tunnel vision; people who were standing just a few feet away from me seemed like they were only five inches tall. I couldn't hear people's conversations properly. It was as if I was going deaf. Even if I'd known what was going on, I couldn't have done anything about it. I was totally powerless."
	These stories are so horrible that I should say at once that the numbers to whom this happens are small, though apparently increasing.
	The only comprehensive research into drug rape is the Sturman report of 2000 by Chief Inspector Peter Sturman of the Metropolitan police. That year, 1,002 people contacted the Drug Rape Trust, the support trust set up by Mr. Sturman. I should declare an interest as a patron of that trust. It is, of course, an unpaid position.
	Last year, 2,016 similar people contacted the trust—twice as many as in the previous year. Although I shall describe victims as "she", I should say that 11 per cent. of complainants are men.
	The Belfast Rape Crisis Centre reported eight drug rapes in 1998 and there are now 350 each year. This is due in part to an increase in offending and in part to increased awareness.
	Eighteen types of drugs have been used in the UK. The most frequently used is GHB, which is recognisable in some of the symptoms reported by the victims in my stories. Like ecstasy, it is a rave drug, and because it is dangerous rather than because of its use in rape, it is now a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so its possession is unlawful.
	The drug Rohypnol has been associated by the media with drug rape, but it has never been found in the UK. The Sturman view is that it is not a hazard.
	Roche, the company that manufactures it has also asked me to make that clear. I do so in particular because with impressive responsibility since the association was made between the drug and drug rape, Roche has reconstituted the tablet so that it floats and fizzes and gives off an indigo dye as it dissolves, so it is useless for spiking a drink. I commend that excellent precedent to the Government, which they should impose on commercial manufacturers of other drugs. However, GHB is easily made domestically from simple substances, and many internet websites give recipes for it.
	Only seven people have been convicted of drug rape in this country. The law is clear: rape is an offence, and section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 makes it an offence to administer a drug in order to stupefy, or to overpower, a person to enable sex. The offence incurs a two-year maximum sentence, which should perhaps be increased. I shall discuss later some possible legal changes, but the problem is not so much the law as the evidence required to prove drug rape.
	The drugs pass through the system quickly—taking between two and eight hours—and leave the victim confused. She will hesitate to tell anyone, and by the time she overcomes the after-effects, the drugs are gone, leaving no evidential trace. The confusion that they cause is itself a barrier to complaining, let alone to giving evidence. What can she say? What can she be sure of? Often, she will have been drinking. She may feel guilt at having had too much, or fear that having had any amount will make the authorities judgmental. Traumatised, she may not want to be treated as if she brought this horrible experience on herself. She may just stay at home.
	The perpetrators we know little about. Self-evidently, this is an evil, premeditated, predatory offence that is recklessly dangerous. It can be the utter ruin of the victim, for presumably transient pleasure. However, according to the Rape Crisis Federation, in the main the offence is perpetrated by professional gangs, and the things done to the victims are filmed, to be sold on as pornography.
	This is not a new issue; Cosmopolitan, Elle, The Observer, and—nearer home, in Redcar—The Northern Echo, have all run recent features on it, but it has not attracted sufficient Government attention. Given that only seven convictions have been secured, the problem must look tiny, but numerically it is far bigger than that. The potentially catastrophic damage to individuals makes the offence important beyond the numbers affected, as does the fear that it casts over the lives of sociable people.
	I have seen a letter from the Government suggesting that the incidence of drug rape is exaggerated, and by implication that, because information about it is available on websites and it is against the law, nothing else needs to be done. I hope that the Minister is not of that point of view. What kind of Government attention should drug rape attract? The Government should fund wider publicity. Of course, it is completely inappropriate to generate panic—I repeat that the numbers involved are small—but that is not a reason to avoid publicising the risk. That would allow the risk to continue, and add to the isolation of drug rape victims. It is for professional public relations experts to plan how best to make the message clear without frightening people.
	The same awareness-raising campaign ought to set out simple preventive or protective steps that people can take without spoiling their pleasure. The task is to incorporate them into people's ordinary behaviour—just as people lock their car and switch on the alarm. Such behaviour does not mean that people live in fear of car theft; it is a simple and obvious precaution, and a fairly successful crime prevention measure that is simply part of what people now do.
	The Drug Rape Trust has launched a campaign—"Be aware and take care"—that features a pocket-sized plastic card, containing tips such as "Don't leave your drink unattended." The theme is that it could happen to anyone, and that we must all watch out for each other. That is rather clever, as it does not put the onus wholly on to the potential victim, who might otherwise feel oppressed. However, a small charity cannot propagate its campaign widely enough, and the Government ought to take the lead.
	The Drug Rape Trust has been working with the Department of Trade and Industry and Government chemists for two years to develop a swizzle stick that indicates when a rape drug is in a drink, and a prototype has been tested. The plan is that a swizzle stick will automatically be put into any drink served by bar staff. Soliciting the support of breweries, pub owners and club owners will obviously require Government help. The plan does contain elements of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but given the grave consequences of drug rape, it would be a simple step to take. It is not possible simply to issue swizzle sticks to people. There is nothing funny about this issue, but accepting a drink from an amiable companion, only to test it for drugs with a swizzle stick, is hardly the way to progress a new relationship. That is simply not practical.
	I should emphasise that no such product is available yet. Certain products claim to be able to test comprehensively for such drugs, which is another reason why the Government must get involved. They must exclude the inevitable profit-chasing charlatans by taking responsibility themselves for verifying preventive products.
	The offence is of course one of rape. The publication on 10 April of the thematic report by the inspectorates of constabulary and of the Crown Prosecution Service on how rape is investigated and prosecuted shows that standards are very low. One criticism raised there and brought into sharper focus by drug rape is the need for specialist medical facilities for the care of rape complainants. Often they are examined in the police station doctor's room, which is used for a range of other purposes. The doctor will be a forensic medical examiner unconnected with the complainant. Such doctors vary in sympathy. As the inspectors found out, both men and women rape complainants prefer to be examined by a female. Although 35 per cent. of GPs are women, only 18 per cent. of forensic medical examiners are women, making the prospect of getting what one wants a poor one.
	Not everybody wants to make a complaint to the police but they might want to be treated and to give samples to keep their options open. It is important, therefore, that facilities be at hospitals and not at police stations. There are centres of excellence, notably the St. Mary's centre in Manchester, which has existed for 14 years and was praised by the inspectors. The doctors there have specific expertise. They have dealt with hundreds of thousands of upset and traumatised men and women at all times of the day and night. They are sympathetic and detached, and knowledgeable enough often to be able to give expert evidence that is capable of being supporting evidence. As the inspectors found, complainants who are supported and given good care from the start are more likely to find the resources to sustain a complaint through the criminal justice system. In order to try to improve the all-time low 7.3 per cent conviction rate for rape, such facilities are urgently needed.
	In July 2000, the Home Office sex offences review recommended changes to the law, in particular the legal redefinition of rape as having sex without free agreement rather than having sex without consent. The review also suggested a non-exhaustive list of examples of when a person does not give free agreement. One item on the list was if a person was too affected by drink or drugs to give free agreement. As with most rape in which the parties are known to each other, however fleetingly, the defence of a drug rape perpetrator, if prosecuted, will be consent. If there is evidence of drug use, a consent defence will have to be accompanied by an assertion that she took the drug herself. In that case, having excess drugs or drink on a list of factors that vitiate consent could be helpful.
	Drug rape is rape. The defence of consent is almost invariably coupled with the defence that if the woman did not consent, the perpetrator thought she had. Rape is having sex knowing, or being reckless as to whether, a woman consented. So if a man genuinely thinks the woman consented, even if in fact she did not, he will not be guilty. I say briefly now what I said at greater length a week ago—because I have been fortunate enough to have two Adjournment debates on aspects of rape in the last fortnight. The defence that the man believed that the woman was consenting is usually accompanied by an application to cross-examine her about her sexual conduct in the past—her previous sexual history. Its relevance is often difficult to see. It is highly prejudicial. It is also cross-examination so intimate that it can undermine a witness's confidence. It plays a well known and massive role in discouraging women from making and sustaining complaints.
	The Government legislated in 1999 to prevent the use of previous sexual history to support a defence of consent. However, that did not exclude the use of previous sexual history for the defence that the man believed that the woman was consenting. Because the defences are run together in the same trial, when previous sexual history is admitted for that defence it has those undesirable effects on the defence of consent as well, despite the Government's intentions. There are contentious issues around how the law should be recast to deal with that issue, and I do not raise them now. However, I ask the Minister when we may discuss them. That is to say, when will the Government bring forward legislation based on the sex offences review and will it cover the two aspects to which I have referred today?
	Returning to the specific offence of drug rape, I can think of no complete solution, but I hope that the Minister will take to heart the fact that drug rape engenders widespread fear and has profound consequences for its victims. Will my hon. Friend take action now to raise awareness and to prescribe measures of self-protection so that women and men can be as safe as possible when enjoying their social lives? The two examples that I gave at the beginning of my speech have both happened since the Sturman report made those recommendations two years ago.

Bob Ainsworth: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing a second debate on this general issue so soon after the first.
	Rape in all its forms is a serious and abhorrent crime. The enormity of the effect on victims and the fear of crime that it engenders among women is very damaging. Society needs to recognise that rape is a serious crime, and that there can be no qualification or lessening of that.
	As my hon. and learned Friend acknowledged, the law is clear about the use of any substance to assist in the commission of this crime by incapacitating the victim, which is a particularly sinister and repellent act. When it takes place in a social context, such as a pub or a club and when the victim knows or is acquainted with the perpetrator, the betrayal of trust that that involves further impacts upon the victim.
	Owing to the relative infrequency of this type of crime and the difficulty of obtaining specific data, it is hard to assess whether it is on the increase. Current police recording methods do not routinely identify that specific sexual offence. In common with other sexual offences, it would be reasonable to assume that any count of incidents significantly underestimates the size of the problem.
	I am pleased to say that the Home Office has taken steps to address the problem of insufficient data. The latest British crime survey will attempt to measure the involvement of drugs in serious sexual offences. The results will be known when the next survey is published later in the year. However, as with all rape and sexual offences, we need more incidents to be reported to the police.
	As my hon. and learned Friend knows, we have taken steps in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to ensure that victims of rape can be provided with protection if cases reach court. Section 41 of the Act was the subject of an Adjournment debate on 24 April. The provisions of the section limit the questions that rape victims can be asked under cross-examination about their previous sexual history so that they do not have to go through that distressing and unnecessary ordeal. I have taken on board what my hon. and learned Friend says about the way in which that is effectively being circumvented, and will come back to her as soon as I can with further thoughts on whether we can protect against that happening.
	The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), in replying to my hon. and learned Friend's previous Adjournment debate, said that we were planning a research project to evaluate the impact of section 41, particularly in the light of the recent House of Lords decision. We are also aware of the need to improve the conviction rate in rape offences generally.
	A working group on rape is being established by the Home Office. It will work with the police and other Government Departments to devise a plan to implement the recommendations of the recent joint inspectorate review. These include using specialist lawyers for rape cases, ensuring that offensive and seemingly irrelevant questioning of victims is challenged and issuing guidance to prosecutors on the review and handling of cases. The report also recommends the improvement of existing training for lawyers and police officers.
	Among the existing good practice identified in the report is the provision in some areas of specialist medical examination facilities and the equipping of first response staff with sample kits to prevent loss of evidence. My hon. and learned Friend commended one institution; I would like to mention the Haven in south London, which is another good example of a specialist medical resource for victims of sexual offences. It is jointly funded by the Metropolitan police and the national health service. The service deals with approximately 10 per cent. of all rape referrals in England and Wales.
	There is little firm evidence to indicate how often drugs are used to facilitate rape, or which drugs are being used. The forensic science service analyses samples from victims in suspected drug rape cases and has been collating data on possible drug-facilitated rape and sexual assault. It investigates about 450 cases of alleged drug-assisted rape each year, and positive drug identifications—those where the presence of an unexplained sedative drug has been detected—are made in only 1 to 2 per cent. of such cases.
	Benzodiazepine drugs are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as class C drugs but, until recently, were exempted from controls on their possession. Following advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Government have introduced additional controls on their import, export and possession. Those further controls should help to reduce the availability of the benzodiazepine drugs on the illicit drugs market and their use in cases of rape.
	As my hon. and learned Friend said, there have been media reports that the drug GHB—gamma hydroxybutyrate—is often used in drug rape. We take that very seriously and have been monitoring the situation to see whether further controls are needed, based on the scientific and medical evidence. Last year, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided to control GHB under the UN convention on psychotropic substances.
	At its meeting last November, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended that GHB should be controlled as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Government have accepted that recommendation in principle, in view of the drug's misuse. Under that classification, possession of the drug would be illegal but, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, its precursors are easily available, so there are great difficulties in dealing with that issue and they will have to be explored further.
	I think that my hon. and learned Friend is also aware that the Government are working to develop a practical device to enable the detection of a range of different drugs in drinks. Only last week, I met representatives of the drinks industry and we were given a presentation on the latest developments in that project. There is much potential, but we are still a long way off. There are public health difficulties and the research has revealed major problems.
	The cost of a workable device would have to be represented as a multiple in the value of the drinks themselves. To make progress in devising an effective and suitable product the costs would have to be reduced, so that the device could be supplied with drinks on all occasions. The public health considerations would also have to be taken into account.
	I was encouraged—as were the people who were undertaking the research on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry—by the reaction of some of the trade representatives. They readily said that they were prepared to assist in the trials of the devices to try to further the research so that we could develop a usable product as quickly as possible.
	It is also important that we have laws that provide clear and coherent offences to protect all victims of sexual offences, with penalties that enable the appropriate punishment of offenders. To that end, the Government set up the sex offences review in January 1999.
	On drug rape, my hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Sexual Offences Act 1956 includes an offence of administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse, and the review proposes an increase in the sentence for that crime from two years to seven years. When the review's recommendations have been considered, we intend to introduce a coherent package of new and amended sexual offences as soon as parliamentary time allows.
	I assure my hon. and learned Friend and the rest of the House that we are determined further to improve the support offered to victims by both the criminal justice system and the community as a whole. Since last October, we have given many victims the opportunity to make a personal statement about how the crime has affected their lives. That will ensure that they can be offered the right level of protection and support, and that their needs are taken into account at every stage in the process. Later this year, we shall announce detailed plans for a Bill of Rights for victims and for a victims commissioner, who I am sure would have a great impact in this area of criminality.
	I hope that I have been able to assure my hon. and learned Friend that we are actively considering rape in its wider context and the various ways in which we can help, and that drug rape is being taken seriously. I am sure that she will continue to monitor the situation and to push for an effective framework in all the different areas necessary to deal with the problem.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.